Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Lieut.-Col. DALRYMPLE WHITE: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions what reduction of staff was effected in the Ministry of Pensions daring the year 1925; and what were the respective percentages of reduction in Scotland and in the rest of the country?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): The staff of the Ministry were reduced, during 1925, by 4,356, from 16,475 to 12,119; the percentage reduction in Scotland being 23.5 and, in the rest of the country, 26.7.

Lieut.-Colonel WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the staff in Scotland has been consistently larger through out in proportion?

Major TRYON: I think the main reason is that the region is still surviving in Scotland, but I am glad to say that many of the staff in Scotland, who have done such good work, have passed the recent examination. Many of them, therefore, will not lose their employment.

ADMINISTRATION COSTS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the whole cost of administration of all British Government services, that is, the aggregate total of all salaries and wages other than those paid to soldiers, sailors, airmen, workmen in royal dockyards and arsenals and manipu-
lative grades in the Post Office, together with all payments for the rents, rates and maintenance of all buildings used by administrative staff, and all the stationery, printing and office supplies used by them; and what was the corresponding total in 1914, the cost of services relating mainly, or exclusively, to the area of the Irish Free State being excluded in both cases?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The expenditure incurred on account of charges for rents rates and maintenance of buildings, and for stationery, printing and office supplies, are not recorded separately for administrative and other staffs, and I regret. that the allocation of these charges in the manner proposed could not be ascertained without an amount of labour and expense which I should regard as altogether disproportionate. In any ease figures could not now be ascertained for 1914 on the basis suggested. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Darwen (Sir Frank Sanderson) on 28th May last, and to the comparisons of national expenditure in 1914 and at the present time contained in the Tables relating to national expenditure recently presented to Parliament (Command Paper 2613), and in the Memorandum on Present and Pre-War Expenditure which is presented annually shortly after the Estimates for the year, the latest issue being Command Paper 2428.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether any consideration has been given to the problem of overhauling administrative methods in Government Departments and bringing them into line with those adopted by large private concerns, thereby effecting very large economies?

Mr. CHURCHILL: We had the advantage of the advice and opinion of Sir Eric Geddes two or three years ago on the whole of this question.

Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: But you did not take it!

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

SECONDARY EDUCATION GRANTS.

Colonel APPLIN: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can grant further consideration to the children of men
killed in the War for grants for secondary education in all cases where the men's former employers are able to certify that they would have reached the necessary positions to justify such grants had they lived and remained in their service?

Major TYRON: The question whether a grant in aid of education should be made out of public funds is determined only on consideration of all the circumstances of the case, but I am glad to be able to assure my hon. and gallant Friend that full weight is given to information of the kind referred to, which is commonly obtained by the Special Grants Committee in dealing with applications.

Colonel APPLIN: Can I understand that any special case which is brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice will be dealt with?

Major TRYON: I shall be very happy to give full consideration to representations made by my hon. and gallant Friend on behalf of these children.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman also assure us that further consideration will be granted to those children who may not come under the rule as it now stands, but who have gained scholarships and are ruled out because of the harsh interpretation which now exists?

Major TRYON: It is not the case that harsh interpretation exists, but, as I think I have already informed the hon. Member, the point raised in this question will be taken into account in the interests of the children

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is it not a fact that the real difficulty in this matter is that an alteration is required in the Regulations governing the Advisory Committee, and if the right hon. Gentleman has got this under consideration, does he anticipate reaching any decision on the point soon?

Major TRYON: I have already informed the hon. Member that I am going through this matter with the new Advisory Committee, and I think that, until they meet, it would be unwise for me to come to any conclusion without awaiting the advice which they may give me.

SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE (POLICE INQUIRIES).

Mr. HAYES: 3.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Special Grants Committee not to vary the practice of causing police inquiries to be made into charges of immorality, etc., against female pensioners; whether he has received representations on this matter from the Liverpool, Bootle, Waterloo and District War Pensions Committee; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Major TRYON: The practice referred to, which has been frequently considered both my myself and by my predecessor, is of long standing. Procedure by which evidence for or against cases of this type is obtained in the first instance by independent inquiry has in long experience been found to be the most satisfactory course by the Special Grants Committee in the discharge of the quasi-judicial functions imposed on them by Statute in connection with the forfeiture of pension. I am informed that the Liverpool and District War Pensions Committee propose to seek an interview with me on certain difficulties of their own in connection with this practice, and, if so, I shall be quite prepared to discuss the matter with them.

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the difficulty of the work of the reclamation of these women by local war pensions committees when inquiries have been made by the police, either in plain clothes or in uniform, seeing that the people in the locality know it is a police officer?

Major TRYON: I quite appreciate the point, and I am glad to say that there are cases in which, after an interval, the pensions have been restored.

Mr. HAYES: 6.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that it is the practice for the police to make inquiries, at the request of the Special Grants Committee of the Ministry of Pensions, into charges of misconduct of female war pensioners; whether such inquiries are made by officers of the uniform or detective departments; whether such reports are privileged; and whether the personal attendance of the officers making the inquiries can be demanded by the pensioners at any subsequent inquiry?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I am aware inquiries are made by the police in certain cases, generally by officers not below the rank of sergeant, in plain clothes. Any such reports are confidential, and it is not anticipated that any question will arise of the attendance of the officer concerned at any subsequent inquiry.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Would it not in these eases act unfairly to the war widow, who never gets a real opportunity of submitting her views and examining the individual who has reported against her?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must demur to that. I do not think it is unfair at all. Somebody must make inquiries, and the police are men of discretion. We de not send officers below the rank of a sergeant, and I think that any statements that are made to them might fairly he relied upon. If there is any suggestion that they are not, I will cause the closest inquiry to be made into it

Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at least in one case that has been brought to the notice of his colleague a statement was made which has since been proved to he false, and yet the woman has been deprived of her pension for a period of four years?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of any particular case

PRE-WAR DEPENDENCE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND).

Mr. JAMES STUART: 4.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether appeals against reduction of pre-War dependence pensions in Scottish cases are settled at. Edinburgh, or whether they are settled in London?

Major TRYON: When certain pre-War dependence pensions were in process of review my predecessor specially arranged that any representations by pensioners in Scotland (as in other regions) dissatisfied with the reassessment of their pensions should he considered not in Edinburgh, but in London at the head quarters of the Ministry. As awards of this class of pension ceased as from lot April, 1922, and the review of existing
pensions was completed in the first six months of 1924, the question raised by my hon. Friend does not now arise.

Mr. ALBERY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why this is?

Major TRYON: Of course, I am not fully aware as to the motives of my predecessor in the late Labour Government in making this change, but it was, at all events, in complete accord with his declared policy, which he stated in a letter, dated 25th July, 1924, as follows:
it is the definite policy of the Ministry, in which I entirely agree, that all regional headquarters should in course of time ho absorbed in the central office in London.
That is entirely consistent with the action taken by the late Government.

STAGE PLAYS (SUNDAY PERFORMANCES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has looked further into the question of stage plays which have been banned by the Censor as undesirable but are presented on Sundays by semi-public associations; and whether any action is intended?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. The Lord Chamberlain, in consultation with my Department, has framed new conditions to govern the performance of stage plays on Sunday, and the matter is now being taken up with the licensees of the theatres. I will let the hon. arid gallant Member know when the conditions are settled.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will that include the ban on plays that have been censored otherwise for public performance?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have said that the conditions are not quite finally settled, Ina when they are, I will send them to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Thank you.

TAXI-CABS.

Sir FRANK MEYER: 7.
asked the Home Secretary the number of taximeter cabs licensed to ply for hire in the Metro-
politan area which are, respectively, more than 12 years old, more than eight years old, and more than five years old?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that the information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available. It would be an almost impossible task to ascertain from the records in the possession of the Metropolitan Police the origin of every cab plying for hire in the Metropolitan area.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that some of these older cabs have been well looked after by their owners, and that they go very well, and is it not a great hardship for their licences to be withdrawn?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That does not quite arise out of this question. It is quite true that some of them arc well cared for, and it is equally true that some of them are not.

Sir F. MEYER: 9.
asked the Home Secretary with whom rests the decision as to the fitness of a taximeter cab to obtain a licence to ply for hire in the Metropolitan area; and whether there is any fixed standard of engine efficiency, of condition of bodywork, and upholstery by which such fitness is judged?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The condition of body work, upholstery, and the vehicle generally is subject to the standard laid down in the Commissioner's conditions of fitness for taximeter cabs. of which I will send a copy to my hon. Friend.

Sir F. MEYER: If the right hon. Gentleman should find it necessary to licence an extra number of two-seater cabs, will he take into consideration the advisability of removing from the streets some of those cabs which really are not fit for hire by the travelling public?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to meet my hon. Friend's wishes, but my difficulty is this: As I have explained before, so many of the least efficient cabs are run by the owners themselves, who are many of them ex-service men, and I should he very loath really to exercise my powers in regard to them, but I hope
that in due course the condition of the cabs will gradually improve.

SLOW-MOVING TRAFFIC, LONDON.

Sir F. MEYER: 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that slow-moving traffic in London constantly violates the Regulation that it should keep close to the kerb; and will he issue instructions to the police to enforce this rule more strictly, with a view to accelerating the movement of traffic?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is a matter with which it is very difficult to deal by police action, but the police take such steps as they can to enforce the law, and I see no cause for further instructions.

SOLICITATION.

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 10.
asked the Home Secretary if he is now able to state whether the Government has decided to appoint a Committee to inquire into the law dealing with street solicitation for the purpose of prostitution; and, if so, what form the Committee is to take?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am considering the terms of reference and the personnel, but my Department is at present very overworked, so I hope my hon. Friend will not press me too urgently.

CLUBS (SALE OF LIQUOR).

Commander COCHRANE: 13.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make in regard to the deputations he recently saw relating to the hours of licensed sale of intoxicating liquor in clubs?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I promised, I have placed this matter fully before my colleagues in His Majesty's Government., and we have decided to await the Report of Lord Southborough's Committee, which is now sitting on a branch of the licensing law, namely, disinterested management, and if it be necessary after consideration of such Report, the Government will direct a full inquiry into the whole of the questions raised before me by the various deputations.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

OPEN-AIR SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can now say if he is prepared to approve the provision of an open-air school in Cambridge?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): Yes, Sir; I have informed the authority that I am prepared to agree to their proceeding with this school.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: What is the expenditure in providing open-air Schools, as they are held in the open air?

Lord E. PERCY: Open-air schools are not entirely in the open air. There are some buildings.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. PALING: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any local education authorities have during the last four months either raised the fees fox entrance to secondary schools or reduced the number of free places; and, if not, whether any such authorities have notified their intention to do so?

Lord E. PERCY: No proposals to in ct case fees in provided schools have been received in my Department during the last four months. As regards free places, variations in the number of awards do not require my specific sanction unless a variation in the limits prescribed in the Regulations is involved. So far as I am aware, local education authorities are acting on the view, stated in paragraph 6 of Administrative Memorandum 44, that it is not desirable to interfere with the normal entry to secondary schools or to re duce the number of free places.

Mr. PALING: Does not the question of economy, as interpreted by the Noble Lord, affect the number of free places?

Lord E. PERCY: The question of economy, as interpreted by me, is in terpreted in Memorandum 44, and 1 would suggest that the hon. Member should read it.

Mr. PALING: Has it not. actually made for a reduction in the number of free places?

Lord E. PERCY: No, because a reduction in the number of free places is specially excluded in that document, if the hon. Member will read it,

Sir CHARLES OMAN: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Education what is at present the average cost of each additional secondary school place and what items are included in the cost; and whether, in the present state of financial stringency, the Board of Education propose to sanction more schools, involving this average expenditure per place, or if they are considering any scheme for reducing the minimum requirements now insisted upon by the Board?

Lord E. PERCY: Building costs depend upon a variety of local factors, but., generally speaking, the average cost per place, exclusive of site and furniture, in secondary schools is at the present time £100–£120, according to the type of accommodation provided. Capital expenditure on secondary schools in relation to net increase in the number of pupils has recently been in creasing at a, much greater rate than this, owing mainly to the replacement or improvement of existing school buildings. As regards the second part of the question, I have appointed a. committee of experts to advise me upon the construction of school buildings with special reference, among other things, to the reduction of cost.

Sir C. OMAN: Might I ask the noble Lord whether he has been entirely misrepresented in the statement that it was something like £240, which purported to be a report of his speech in Rugby?

Lord E. PERCY: I deal with that in my answer, if my hon. Friend will look at it. The other figure was that of the rate at which capital expenditure on secondary schools was increasing in pro portion to the increase of the number of pupils, owing to the large amount of capital expenditure, not on providing new places, but on replacing accommodation for existing places.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is possible to persuade the building unions to speed up the construction of school buildings, so that provision may be made
more rapidly and more cheaply of necessary school places for the children of the people?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the bricklayers are using bricks as fast as they are being produced in this country?

Lord E. PERCY: I do not think, as far as secondary schools are concerned, that delays in building are really responsible for the cost of these schools. The cost is caused by present standards of provision and the requirements of the present curriculum. I think the whole question as to the scale in providing secondary schools is a very grave one, which will have to be considered.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many secondary schools have since 1st January, 1926, intimated their intention to increase their scales of fees; and how many secondary schools have indicated since the same date their intention to reduce the number of free places?

Lord E.. PERCY: As stated in my answer to the hon. Member for Don caster (Mr. Paling) to-day, no such applications have been received from local authorities. As regards non-pro vided schools, six proposals for an increase of fees, and one proposal for a reduction in the number of free places, have been received by my Department since 1st January last. This compares with seven such applications approved by the Board in the first three months of last year.

CURRICULUM (TRADE AND INDUSTRY).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received a resolution, passed by the Plymouth Incorporated Mercantile Association, that an advisory council should be appointed to act jointly with the Education Board in arranging the curriculum of the schools, especially in relation to the requirements of trade and industry; and if he will state whether he is in favour of adopting such a proposal?

Lord E. PERCY: I have received the resolution in question, and have brought it to the notice of the Committee which has been appointed by my right hon.
Friend the Minister of Labour and myself to inquire into and advise upon the public system of education in England and Wales in relation to the requirements of trade and industry. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the Board already have the assistance of a statutory consultative committee, which is now conducting an inquiry into curriculum for the older pupils in the elementary schools.

TRAINING COLLEGES.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of applicants for admission to teachers' training colleges who have been refused admission; and whether he will increase the number of places available in the cases of those colleges which have sufficient accommodation?

Lord E. PERCY: I have not the information asked for, but I have no reason to believe that the number of students for whom places are available is insufficient to meet the needs of the schools.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

MR. SOERMUS(VISITING PERMIT).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 14.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has issued a permit for a further visit to this country of Mr. Soermus; if so, for what period the permit was issued, and whether it has been renewed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I recently authorised the grant of a visa to enable Mr. Soermus to travel to this country for a visit of 14 days for the purpose of seeing his children. No extension of this period will be allowed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: What is the legal nationality of the gentleman?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think he is a Russian, but I cannot carry the nationality in my head. I will let my hon. Friend know if he wants to know.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are the children of the same legal nationality as their father?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I believe they are legal children, and therefore they must be of the same. nationality.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In those circum stances, could the right hon. Gentleman say why they are still here?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not quite certain. I would prefer to have notice of that question.

Mr. DUNCAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what crime this gentle man has committed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not suggesting that he has committed any crime.

Mr. DUNCAN: The questioner has.

DOMICILE IN GREAT BRITAIN.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 19.
asked the Home Secretary the approximate number of aliens who took up domicile in Great Britain during the year 1925?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret I am not in a position to give the information asked for. A detailed analysis of he statistics of aliens who entered and left the United Kingdom in 1925 will appear in the Annual Return for that year, the preparation of which is not yet complete but which, I hope, will be published shortly. In any case, the permanent addition to the alien population of the United Kingdom during last year was inconsiderable.

Major CRAWFURD: Is there any means of ascertaining the number of British subjects who, in the same period, cook up their domicile abroad?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We have no record here. The hon. and gallant 3entleman might ascertain the information by inquiry abroad.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 20.
asked the Home Secretary the approximate number of aliens who purchased houses in Great Britain during the year 1925?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir; I regret that I am not aware of any source from which the information asked for could be obtained.

SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING).

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: 15.
asked the Home Secretary if, in view of the fact that there are a good many points in regard to an amendment to the Shops (Early Closing) Act whereby cigarettes,
matches, and chocolates can be purchased after 8 p.m., he will appoint a Committee to investigate the various aspects of this question and report their recommendations?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There are certainly a number of points which will call for careful inquiry before any fresh legislation is passed, and it may be necessary to set up a Committee for the purpose. The matter is receiving my consideration, but I am not in a position to, give any definite undertaking on tine point at present.

MEDICINES (DEATHS FROM MISADVENTURE OR SUICIDE).

Mr. BASIL PETO: 16.
asked the Home Secretary how many deaths occurred during the past five years either by misadventure or by suicide as a result of the taking of human or animal medicines; if any, how many deaths were due to human and animal medicines, respectively; and the number of cases in which such medicines were supplied by medical men or chemists?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply. I regret that materials are not available enabling me to answer the question of my hon. Friend.

WIRELESS SETS (LICENSED PREMISES).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that orders have recently been issued by the police authorities forbidding the instalment of wireless sets and the use of wireless sets already installed in public houses and other licensed premises unless such premises are also licensed for music and singing; under what Act this order is made; whether it also applies to gramophones and other music-making instruments; and whether he will take steps to prevent the issue of such orders?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention has not been specially drawn to any such action by police authorities as is described in the first part of the question; but the matter is not, in any event, one in which I can take any steps. The question whether a music licence is required for the use of wireless sets, or of
other particular forms of entertainment, in licensed premises is one for the local authority and involves questions of law which can only be decided by the Courts. The enactments from which local authorities derive their powers in the matter of music licences vary according to the locality concerned.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is there any reason for supposing that sounds from wireless sets can be described as either music or singing?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that is almost a question which might be asked of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

" THE CANTAB" WITHDRAWN.

Mr. BOOTHBY: 18.
asked the Home Secretary what is the position with regard to the proposed prosecution of the publisher or the author of "The Cantab"?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Director of Public Prosecutions made an application at Bow Street on the 15th March for the issue of a search warrant in respect of the book The Chief Magistrate, after expressing his views plainly about the hook, decided to adjourn the application in order that it might be ascertained whether the book was being effectively withdrawn by the publishers (Messrs. Chatto and Windus). It is only fair to add that the publishers are co-operating with the police in the recovery of unsold copies of the book, which will be destroyed.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The fact is the book is going to be withdrawn?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Oh, yes; we have received the most unqualified undertaking from the publishers that they will withdraw it. The police are co-operating with them in recovering the unsold copies of the book, and they will he destroyed in the presence of the police.

BRICK CRUSHING (SOUTHWARK).

Colonel DAY: 28.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the complaints of residents in the Trinity Street area of Southwark as to the pollution of air and the nuisance
arising from brick-crushing operations carried out in Borough High Street; and, in view of the fact that the local authorities concerned have no power to deal with this problem, will he take steps to have this practice stopped?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to this matter, and I am looking into it, with a view to seeing if anything can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LODGING-HOUSES.

Colonel DAY: 29.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received representations from the Metropolitan Borough Council of Southwark objecting to the definition of a lodging-house as laid clown by the London County Council in the suggested by-laws forwarded for confirmation under Section 6 of the Housing Act, 1925; and will he, before confirmation of such by-laws in their present form, carefully consider the alternative proposals of the borough council concerned?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South-East Southwark on the 15th instant, and I will send him copy of the letter referred to in that reply.

SUBSIDISED, HOUSES.

Mr. TAYLOR: 33.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount sanctioned as subsidies for the erection of houses under the 1923 and 1924 Housing Arts; and how many houses have been built for sale and how many have been built to let at weekly rentals under them

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The estimated capitalised value of the subsidies payable by the Government under the Housing Acts of 1923 and 194, if the houses authorised up to the 1st instant are duly completed, is £37,856,000. Information is not available as to the total numbers of houses which have been built for sale and for weekly letting, but as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, houses built under the Act of 1924 must be available for letting. On the 1st instant the number of houses authorised under the Act of 1923 was 265,128, of which 141,714 had been completed, while under the Act of 1924, 110,474 had been authorised and 25,856 completed.

Mr. TAYLOR: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Government are considering the abolition or reduction of the subsidies granted for the erection of houses for the working classes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Section 5 of the Housing Act, 1924, requires that after the 1st October next the Minister of Health and the Scottish Board of Health shall take into consideration the expenses likely to be incurred during the next two years in connection with the provision of assisted houses and to have regard to the expenses actually incurred in connection with such houses during the previous two years and thereafter an Order may be made modifying Exchequer contributions in respect of houses built under the Acts of 1923 and 1924. Accordingly I do not propose to anticipate the review which m 1st be undertaken under the Statute Seven months hence.

Mr. HARRIS: Does not the Minister realise that it is embarrassing the local authorities who arc buying new estates and making contracts, if they do not know whether there is to be a subsidy in October, as many of these houses will not be completed by October?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think there is bound to be some embarrassment obviously, when there is going to be a review of the conditions that have obtained. These conditions may be altered, but I have done my best in the statements I have made in public to minimise that embarrassment, and to give the local authorities confidence that they can go on building.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will the undertakings entered into be fully honoured by the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have never said that.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Are we to under stand that in the housing contracts already entered into before the close of October that those concerned will get an altered subsidy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, it is not a question of contracts entered into; it is a question of what has been done to the houses. What I have said was that any houses substantially begun before the 1st October, will certainly receive the old subsidy under the old
conditions. A contract might be made now for a house, and the house might not be commenced for a couple of years, and I could not give a guarantee that in those circumstances the matter would come under the old Order, and might not have to come under any altered conditions that were made.

DEVONPOKT.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can now say if his Department is making any special provision for housing the in creased population of Devonport, owing to the influx of personnel from Pembroke and Rosyth?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am considering the representations made to me by the deputation from the Town Council of Plymouth which I met on Tuesday last.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

WOMEN'S CENTRE, CLAPHAM

Colonel DAY: 30.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that women attending for medical examination at the Ministry of Health Centre, Saint Barnabas Church Hall, Lavender Gardens, Clapham, S.W., for panel benefits on account of pregnancy, are obliged to disrobe in an insufficiently heated room and afterwards to walk along a cold corridor to the medical officer's room; and will he cause adequate provision to be made for the comfort and welfare of women in future attending the centre for such medical examinations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not received any complaints with reference to the matter raised in the question, but I have caused inquiries to be made, and I am assured that the heating apparatus in the insured persons' dressing room is adequate, and that the medical officers and nurses at the centre have the fullest regard to the comfort and welfare of the patients. The corridor leading to the medical officer's room is only six yards in length and is closed at each end, and patients passing along the corridor can wear as much of their indoor or outdoor clothing as they may wish.

Colonel DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is fair to ask these women to attend for this examination in a very advanced stage of pregnancy?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the question put down—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: No, it is a supplementary—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is one of which I have not had notice, but I have no reason to suppose that any complaint can be made on that score.

DENTAL TREATMENT.

Mr. D. GRENFELL (for Mr. ROBINSON): 39.
asked the Minister of Health what approved societies make pro vision for dental treatment; and if he will take steps to ensure that dental treatment and the provision of dentures shall be included in the treatment provided under the National Health Insurance Acts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Some 3,500 approved societies and branches in Eng land, having a total membership of over 10,500,000 insured persons, have adopted schemes of additional benefits that include payments towards the cost of dental treatment. These numbers are likely to be materially increased from next July, when schemes following the second valuation will become operative for societies and branches valued as at the end of 1923. The Royal Commission on National Health Insurance, who considered the subject exhaustively, came to the conclusion that, while a complete dental service for the whole insured population would be eminently desirable, it is not at present financially practicable, and they recommended that the general arrangements for dental services under additional benefit schemes should be continued. Societies and branches having a sufficient disposable surplus on valuation are reminded of the possibility of their adopting dental benefit as an additional benefit, and I propose that this shall remain the practice.

Mr. HARRIS: Would it have been financially possible to give dental treatment if the Fund had not been raided by the reduction of the percentage grant from the Government?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. If the hon. Member will read the Report of the Royal Commission, he will see that it was not possible.

ANIMAL SLAUGHTER (HUMANE KILLER).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 31.
asked the Minister of Health how many of the abattoirs established by county boroughs and other local authorities, respectively, use some form of humane killer in slaughtering animals?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that this information is not available in my Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

RELIEF (ENGLAND AND WALES).

Mr. BATEY: 32.
asked the Minister of Health the number of people in receipt of Poor Law relief in Great Britain on the 1st January, 1925, and the 1st January, 1926, respectively; and the number in Durham County on the same dates?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total numbers of persons in receipt of Poor Law relief in England and Wales on the 1st January, 1925, and 1st January, 1926, were. 1,205,267 and 1,441,500, respectively. The corresponding numbers for Poor Law unions situated wholly or mainly in the County of Durham were 53,061 and 129,800. The figures for the 1st January, 1926, are approximate. As regards figures for Scotland, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. HARRIS: Does not that indicate that unemployment has not really gone down, and is being pushed on to the Poor Law?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I do not think it indicates anything of the sort.

Mr. PALING: What does it indicate—better trade?

METROPOLITAN COMM0N POOR FUND.

Mr. THURTLE: 40.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that payments from the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund to London boroughs axe frequently 12 months in arrear; and what steps are open to boroughs whose money is thus withheld to overcome the financial difficulty thereby created?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is the fact that payments from the Common Poor
Fund are normally made some 12 months in arrear. I cannot, however, agree that at the present time this leads to any financial difficulty which requires to be dealt with, for the guardians in any half-year receive from the fund a sum sub stantially equivalent to the amount which will ultimately be due to them from the fund in respect of their expenditure in that half-year.

Mr. THURTLE: With respect to the six months' payment which is in arrear, would it be possible for guardians to obtain some loan on account during that six months?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They have pc veers to borrow under the Act of 1921.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. TAYLOR: 35.
asked the Minister of health how many persons it is estimated Will become eligible for old age pensions at 70 or over on 2nd July next as a result of the abolition of the means limit in Section 20 of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act; and whether a person aged 67, who has been in an insured occupation since the commencement of the Insurance Acts but is not now in employment, will receive the advantage of the abolition of the means test for an old ago pension on reaching the age of 70?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, the estimated number of persons eligible for the full old age pension of 10s. is 87,000. As regards the second part of the question, title to an old age pension without a means test on attaining 70 will, in the circum stances mentioned, depend on whether the man will be qualified for a contributory old age pension on 2nd January, 1928. The fact that he is at present out of employment will not of itself prevent him from satisfying the qualifying conditions on 2nd January, 1928.

Mr. TAYLOR: If a member has left his approved society and has not remained a contributor, will he be able to qualify at 70 without a means test, if his last employment was an insurable occupation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That will depend upon what happens on 2nd January.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 42.
asked the Minister of Health under what circumstances men inspectors arc required to ask questions of widows making claims under the Pensions Act relating to their moral character; and whether he will give instructions that such inquiries shall be undertaken in future by women inspectors?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not necessary for investigating officers to satisfy themselves that a claimant is not leading an immoral life. Section 21 of the Act does, however, provide that a widow is disqualified from obtaining a pension, if and so long as she and any other person are cohabiting together as man and wife, and an officer must obviously make inquiry in any case where it comes to his knowledge that cohabitation may be taking place. The hon. Member will appreciate that such information may reach an officer only at a late stage of the investigation, and, in the circum stances, it would be impracticable to give any undertaking that inquiries in such cases should be made only by the women investigating officers.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Where there is no such evidence, and it is simply an inquiry because the woman has not been living with her husband at the time of his death, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it undesirable that men officers should put questions to women?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; I can not give any such general opinion.

ENCEPHALITIS LETHARGICA.

Mr. BRIANT: 36.
asked the Minister of Health the number of cases of encephalitis lethargica notified during each of the years 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The figures are as follow:


Year.
Number of Cases Notified in England and Wales (including Port Sanitary Districts).


1922
…
454


1923
…
1,025


1924
…
5,039


1925 (provisional)
…
2,635

BLIND PERSONS ACT, 1920.

Captain FRASER: 41.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the action which has been taken by the Hull Corporation to provide a minimum income to blind persons ordinarily resident in their area under the powers given by the Blind Persons Act, 1920; and if he will bring the matter to the notice of other local authorities throughout the country, with a recommendation that they should take similar action?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the action which the Hull Town Council have under consideration in this matter. Other authorities under the Blind Persons Act, 1920, have already made, or have under consideration, arrangements of a similar character, and as at present advised I do not think it is necessary to take the action suggested in the latter part of the question.

MILK AND DAIRIES (DRAFT ORDER).

Mr. LAMB: 43.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the serious delay which has taken place in connection with the printing and circulation of the draft Order proposed to be made under the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, and to the consequent difficulty of making its contents known to the great number of persons affected; and if he will extend the time during which representations may be made to him with regard to the provisions of the draft Order?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the delay referred to by my hon. Friend, and I shall, in view of it, be pleased to extend the time during which any representations may he made to me as to the draft Order until the end of April.

SHAKESPEARE MEMORIAL THEATRE.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the Shakespeare Memorial National Theatre Committee is contemplating the acceptance of a site in London for the building
of a national theatre, and in view of the committee's avowed intention to appeal for Government support when the site has been acquired, the Government will, before any irrevocable action has been taken by the Memorial Committee, take steps to inquire into the suitability of the proposed site for the purpose of a national theatre?

Mr. CHURCHILL: This is a hypothetical question. I do not think that in present financial circumstances the Government could take any step which would give the committee reason to expect that a Government contribution would be forthcoming.

Sir F. MEYER: May I, as a member of the committee and a trustee of this fund, ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not the fact that application was made. to the Government for a site and was refused; and whether, in view of the statement in the question that the committee contemplate the acceptance of a site, it would not be wiser in the circum stances, for hon. Members not to count their chickens before they are hatched?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That question seems to answer itself.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Why not put up a monument to Robert Burns?

FIGHTING SERVICES (PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS).

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that during each year a number of officers and, men are invalided cut of the Army, Navy, and Air Force suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis; that, as a rule, it is impossible to accurately determine whether the disease is attributable to the conditions of service or not; that the large majority of cases are decided as not being so attributable and, consequently, receive no pension on account of their disability; and that the only money the men receive during their pro longed and debilitating illness is from the National Health Insurance, which is inadequate for the purpose; and whether he will consider the possibility of instituting a form of insurance (compulsory or otherwise) for officers and men in these Services against this disease, so
that, on being invalided out of the Services for this disease, they may receive a pension which will be adequate for their needs until recovery or death?

Mr. CHURCHILL: As the answer is a long one, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL ROPORT.

Following is the answer:

I am advised that the answer to the first and third parts of the question is in the affirmative.

As regards the second part of the question, the disease is prevalent throughout all classes and all occupations, and unless there is evidence that the patient has beer exposed to abnormal conditions of service to which he would not have been subjected in ordinary life, the disease cannot be held attributable to the Service. Every case has therefore to be considered on its merits.

As regards the fourth part of the question, the non effective benefits granted to officers in non-attributable cases are considered sufficient, having regard to their ages and length of service. In attributable cases these grants are inc. eased by supplementary allowances which in cases of total disablement amount to £100 a year. In addition, grants in aid of sanatorium expenses are made so long as the officers remain on the active list. Men invalided for tuberculosis are entitled to the benefits of the Na -ional Health Insurance Acts and, in addition, to a pension for life if they have 14 years' service (or 10 in certain cases). In attributable cases the pension base on service is supplemented by a further allowance in respect of the disablement. When the service amounts to less than the above periods a gratuity is payable.

As regards the last part of the question, I do not think it would be practicable le differentiate between tuberculosis and other non-attributable diseases, so far as insurance is, concerned.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (CONSTITUTION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister when it is
expected that the committee to consider possible changes in the constitution of the League of Nations is to meet; who will be the British members of this committee; and who will be the British representatives at the next meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I have been asked to reply. The date fixed for the meeting of the committee is 10th May. I am not in a position at this stage to answer the other parts of the question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the House be informed of the general instruction to be given to our representatives on this committee before it meets?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I cannot say that.

STANDING ORDERS (SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS).

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether any steps have yet been taken, by consultation nr otherwise, with regard to the suggested amendment of the Standing Order governing I he. suspension of Members: and whether he has any statement he can make to the House on the subject?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Commander Eyres Monsell): Yes, Sir; consultations have taken place between the leaders of the parties, and a suggested Amendment to Standing Order No. 18 will appear on the Order Paper to-morrow.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain statements have appeared in the Press, presumably official, as to certain periods of suspension, and that those periods of suspension do not accord with the preponderant feeling in the House?

Commander EYRES MONSELL: I am not responsible for any notices appearing in the Press, and my hon. Friend may take it that none is official.

ARTIFICIAL SUNLIGHT TREATMENT.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 50.
asked the Minister of Health to what extent the artificial sunlight treatment has been introduced into the hospitals in this country; and whether this form of treatment is proving successful?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no complete information as to the number of hospitals in this country in which this form of treatment is provided, but arrangements for the provision of this treatment have been approved, in connection with tuberculosis and maternity and child welfare schemes, in the case of 26 hospitals and sanatoria (exclusive of tuberculosis dispensaries and maternity and child welfare clinics). Reports on the approved schemes are now being considered in my Department, and I am not yet in a position to give a complete reply to the second part of the question, but I may say that this form of treatment, if appropriately applied, is undoubtedly beneficial in many cases.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that several Members of the Cabinet have undergone this treatment, which has resulted in strengthening their vitality?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not heard, and I have not noticed that any Members of the Cabinet showed any want of vitality.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is doing to provide natural sun light for the people by abating the smoke in the country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the measure which has already been introduced in another place.

MALE SERVANTS (LICENCES).

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of male servants for whom licences were taken out in 1924 and 1925, including gardeners, keepers, chauffeurs, hunt servants, etc.; and how much money did it come to?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The number of male servant licences taken out in the
financial years ended the 31st March, 1924 and 1925, was 173,363 and 174,274 respectively. The net receipts were £130,009 and £130,698.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. B. PETO: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the intention of the Government to abolish the General Commissioners of Income Tax; if not, whether he is aware of the shortage of suitable Land Tax Commissioners for selection as General Commissioners of Income Tax; and, in view of the fact that it is now 20 years since a Land Tax Commission Act was passed in the House of Commons, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the appointment of Land Tax Commissioners at an early date?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. A Land Tax Commissioners Names Act was last enacted in 1906, but I am not aware that there is a shortage of suitable Land Tax Commissioners for selection as General Commissioners of Income Tax. I am unable to forecast the introduction of a further Names Bill, but any indications of the need for such a Measure will continue to receive my careful attention.

Mr. PETO: Will the right hon. Gentle man allow me to forward him some evidence that there is a shortage?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly.

TRUSTEE LOANS (PROSPECTUSES).

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the credit facilities obtained by the Dominions and corporations in issuing loans which may be subscribed for by trustees under the Trustee Act and of their increasing requirements, if he will take steps to ensure that the investing public is provided in the prospectuses issued with more detailed information as to the general financial and budgetary position of the borrowers, and that the example set by the Government of New Zealand and the Crown Colonies is one that should be more generally followed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think that. I have any power to insist on the publica-
tion by borrowers under the Colonial Stock Acts of detailed information with regard to their budgetary position. But I should certainly welcome the extension of the practice, already adopted in many cases, of giving such information.

Sir J. NALL: Could conditions be attached to the granting of credit facilities?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is not a question of granting credit facilities, but of the issue of loans.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give any estimate of the costs incurred by the Treasury in clerical and other expenses in the Income Tax Departments, rendered necessary by the fact that the banks do not deduct income Tax when paying or crediting back accounts with accrued interest?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am unable to state what fraction of the cost of the Inland Revenue Department may be referable to the assessment and collection of Income Tax on the income to which the hon. Member refers. I would add, that I am advised that the change in the treatment of bank interest, which the hon. Member is advocating in his following questions, would not necessarily secure any economy in administration costs, inasmuch as on balance it would be likely to add to the work involved in claims to repayment of tax.

Mr. THURTLE: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether this would result in a largely increased revenue or not?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am led to believe that it would not tend to any large increase in. revenue. If I were led to believe to the contrary, I should look at it with very great interest.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Arising out of the supplementary reply, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a Royal Com mission on the subject came to exactly opposite conclusions to those which he has just expressed?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. I had the opportunity of perusing passages from the Report of the Royal Commission Ix fore I made my answer.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 58 and 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that the Royal Commission on Income Tax [Cmd. 615] reported that there was considerable evasion of Income Tax in regard to bank interest credited to deposit and other accounts; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take to ensure collection of such Income Tax at the source; (2) whether he is aware that on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill (No. 3), 1915, the Government with drew its proposal to authorise deduction of Income Tax by the banks upon interest paid on bank deposits, and announced that an agreed Clause in another form of words would be substituted; and, seeing that no such substituted Clause was pro posed, has he any intention of taking steps to ensure that this form of income shall no longer largely escape taxation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: With the hon. Member's permission, I will answer these questions together. I am aware of the circumstances to which he alludes, but, as I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) on the 11th March, the question of the collection of Income Tax at the source on bank interest credited to deposit and other accounts involves a number of important and difficult considerations. I do not share the hen. Member's view that there is a large loss of revenue under the existing procedure; I can assure him that the problem of the evasion of liability to income Tax receives constant attention in all its aspects.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that officers from his own Department gave evidence before the Income Tax Commission to the effect that they estimated that about £100,000,000 of money had escaped taxation during a particular period?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The evidence and the Report of that Commission are continually considered in the Treasury, and we do our utmost to turn to the best advantage the information and advice which the Commission gave.

Mr. JOHNSTON: But is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Government, acting presumably upon the advice of its Treasury Department, actually brought in a Clause on the Finance Bill to bring about this reform, and that the
late Chancellor of the Exchequer or his assistant declared in this House that an agreed form of words had been come to and would be introduced next day, and that such agreed form of words has never yet been put before this House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It is in the light of those facts that I have given the answer which I have just read out, but, as I say, all questions relating to the more efficient collection of the revenue will always be approached by me in an unprejudiced and hopeful spirit.

ISLE OF MAN (TOURISTS' LUGGAGE).

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Isle of Man Legislature is being requested by the Imperial Government to adopt the protective duties enacted by the Safe guarding of Industries Act, he will say whether, until these duties are imposed, he proposes to instruct the Customs authorities to examine the luggage of all tourists returning from the island?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Duties corresponding with those imposed by the Safe guarding of Industries (Customs Duties) Act, 1925, arc already in operation in the Isle of Man.

DEATH DUTIES.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of persons in respect of whom Death Duties were paid from 1900 to 1925, stating separately the number of assessments from £500,000 to £1,000,000, and from £1,000,000 upwards

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the tables contained in the 54th, 64th and 67th Reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, which give the information desired for the years up to and including 1923–24.
The numbers for the year 1924–25 are as follow:

Total number of estates upon which Estate Duty was paid
105,947


Estates between £500,000 and £1,000,000
29


Estates exceeding £1,000,000
13

SUGAR BEET.

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 62.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the sugar-beet yield for the past season, 1926–26, and the aggregate amount of pure sugar manufactured from such beet?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): According to the latest information furnished by the factory companies, the quantity of sugar beet delivered to the factories in the 1925–26 season was 434,226 tons: and the amount of refined sugar manufactured from this beet was 51,140 tons.

HORSES (EXPORT).

Mr. SMITHERS: 63.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has recently received any information as to the conditions under which decrepit horses are exported; and, in view of the continued agitation, can he make a statement on the matter?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Departmental Committee which reported on the 31st July, 1925, stated that they were satisfied that no horse which could be described as decrepit has been passed for export by the port inspect ors since the reorganisation of the Ministry's arrangements in 1921, and that the provisions of the Acts of 1910 and 1914 are being efficiently carried out. I am satisfied that this continues to be the case, and I will see that the standard required by the Regulations is fully maintained.

Captain GEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to warn the public that There is no necessity to give funds to these bogus societies?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think it is realised since the issue of the Report that horses are not allowed to be exported unless they are fit to travel and work without suffering, and there are many horses working on our streets that do not come up to the standard for export.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

MERCHANT SEAMEN.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 64.
asked the President of the Board of if he is aware of the continued
and heavy unemployment among British merchant seamen; and what steps he is taking to encourage shipowners to employ a greater proportion of British seafarers in their crews?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): There is a certain amount of unemployment among British merchant seamen, but it is not possible to give exact figures or to make an accurate comparison with the pre-War position. Taking the engagements at the Mercantile Marine Offices, the engagements of aliens amount to about 5 per cent. of the total. While I have every desire to see the percentage of British seamen even lager than at present, I do not think that representations to shipowners, who are fully aware of the position, would serve any useful purpose.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman talks about "a certain amount" of unemployment, but will he be good enough to visit Hull during the Recess? If be does and goes down to the Postern Gate any morning he will see a large number of able and excellent sea men without ships.

Sir B. CHADWICK: I do not want to give it false impression by my reply, but when I used the words "a certain amount" I was aware that there is too much unemployment. The point of the question, however, was not that, but whether we can relieve unemployment by increasing the number of British seamen in British ships. It is that part of the question to which I was referring, and I do not think that any report such as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested would do any good.

Mr. HAYES: Has the Department taken any steps to deal with crews such as those which were referred to in the House the other day, which contain every nationality except British, and yet are registered in a British port?

Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes, Sir; as far as we can we do everything to meet such cases.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is this not a case for tightening up the Aliens Act generally all round?

Mr. SPENCER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a most extraordinary question for a pronounced Free Trader to put down?

GREATER LONDON.

Mr. NAYLOR: 66.
asked the Minister of Labour how many registered adults and young persons secured situations through the London Employment Exchanges in the month of January; and how many of Such persons had re-registered as unemployed by the end of February?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): During the four weeks ended 1st February, the number of persons placed in employment by Employment Exchanges in the Greater London area were: men, 6,942; women, 5,350; boys, 4,117, and girls, 3,581. I am unable to state the number of such persons who had re-registered as unemployed by the end of February.

Mr. NAYLOR: What is the special difficulty in securing the further information required?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am afraid we have no data on which I could frame an answer to that question.

EXTENDED BENEFIT.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 67.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, owing to the recent administration of extended benefit, the cost of poor relief to able-bodied unemployed persons has increased by over £1,000 per week in the Middlesbrough Union during the last six months; and, in view of the heavy additional burden thus thrown on the local rates, will he reconsider the issue of fresh Regulations modifying the stringency of the present administration of unemployment benefit?

Mr. LANSBURY: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that out of a total of over 5,000 able-bodied persons and their dependants in receipt of relief in the Poplar Union at least. 3,600 are not in receipt of unemployment benefit of any kind; that a considerable number of these are men and women to whom unemployment benefit bits been refused during the last few months; that the extra cost of these maintenance of these men and their dependants has added £2,000 a week to the
expenditure of the guardians; and what steps he proposes to take to relieve the ratepayers of London of the cost of maintaining the unemployed whose unemployment is not due to local but to national causes?

Mr. BETTERTON: My right hon. Friend indicated in reply to questions on 10th February that he was making inquiry as to the extent to which persons disqualified for benefit apply for poor relief and with what result. Meanwhile I can only point out that, save in a very few cases of aliens, the discretionary power of the Minister to refuse unemployment benefit is exercised only when the claimant would suffer no hardship, and should not therefore throw any burden on the Poor Law. Other refusals of benefit are consequent on the statutory requirements and not on the exercise of any discretion vested in the Minister.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that owing to the increase of unemployment in the Middlesbrough Union the guardians have had to increase the rate by is in the £ during the forthcoming year, and will he expedite an inquiry into this question as soon as possible?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir, but I am sure my right hon. Friend wishes the inquiry to he as complete as possible, and it will therefore take some time. If it were merely a perfunctory inquiry it would serve no useful purpose.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentle man aware that the Minister of Labour has informed the House that the increase of recipients of Poor Law in 12 months is 236,000, and is that consistent with the hon. Gentleman's reply?

Mr. BETTERTON: I see nothing in those figures inconsistent with the answer I have given.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If an applicant for Poor Law relief can prove that he is endeavouring to seek work, he can also prove the same thing to the people at the Employment Exchange, and thereby qualify for unemployment pay.

CREWE EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE,

Mr. AMMON: 68.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that 20 or 30 men have been sent by the Crewe
Employment Exchange a distance, involving considerable travelling-time, to work in the Minnie Pit, North Staffordshire, despite the fact that they have no experience of mining; that in one instance, that of Mr. Hodnett, 40, Moss Square, Crewe, only 5s. per shift is received; that the omnibus fare is 1s. each way; and the, therefore the net income for a six-shift week is only 18s.; if he will state under what authority or regulations the Ministry of Labour is entitled to send these inexperienced men so far out of their own district; and whether, in view of the net earnings, he will state under what regulations the employment is considered a suitable one?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am having inquiries made, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

FORESTRY WORKERS' HOLDINGS.

Major STEEL: 70.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he will state, in connection with the forest workers' holdings scheme, approximately how many holdings will be occupied at the close of the current financial year; on how many additional holdings work is proceeding; the average size of the holdings; the average rental; the number of houses built, and the number reconditioned, for the purpose of holdings; and the average cost of each class?

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON: I have been asked to reply by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Sir L. Forestier-Walker). At the close of the current financial year the Forestry Com missioners' scheme for forest workers' holdings will have been in operation for 18 months. The number of such holdings occupied is 137 and work is proceeding on 128 additional holdings; the average size is 10 acres; the average rental £17 15s. 0d.; the number of houses built is 97, and 113 additional houses have been reconditioned; the average cost per house built was approximately £529 and per house reconditioned approximately £198.

RAIL-BORNE COAL (IPSWICH).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the observations of the
Ipswich Dock Commissioners on a question which he submitted to them concerning a flat rate duty of 1s. 6d. per ton on rail-borne coal delivered in Ipswich; and, if so, will he now state what these observatons are?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I understand that the Ipswich Dock Commissioners have this matter under consideration but I have not yet received a definite reply from them on the subject. I am informed that the next meeting of the Commissioners will not be held till the second week of April.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been discussed between him and myself for a whole month, and are we likely to get an early reply?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that there has been any undue delay. The Dock Commissioners considered this matter about 10 days ago, and they adjourned the discussion to the second we-3k in April, when they hope to come to a decision.

POST OFFICE (SUPERVISING OVERSEER, SCOTLAND).

Mr. AMMON: 72.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, in connection with the filling of a supervising vacancy for overseers telegraph canvassing work in Scotland, the Union of Post Office Workers asked that applications should be invited in accordance with the procedure of the Promotion Committee's Report; that the Department replied that the vacancy has now been notified to the staff in the usual way in accordance with the procedure indicated in the Promotion Committee's Report; that in fact this procedure was not adopted, but that the vacancy was filled by an officer not on the acting list and only 95th on the staff list; whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction created among the local staff; and if he will state why the agreed pro motion procedure was not carried out?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The Glasgow staff were notified of the vacancy and they availed themselves of the opportunity of making representations on the subject, but the Postmaster-General found it necessary to select an officer
who was not on the acting list in view of his special experience of the duties for which the post was provided.

COAL MINES (ACCIDENTS TO BOYS).

Mr. HAYDAY: 73.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of accidents, fatal and non-fatal, respectively, received by boys of 16 years of age and under employed in or about the coal mines for the year ending 1925

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): 79 boys of 16 years of age and under employed in and about mines under the Coal Mines Act were killed during the year 1925, and 15,241 were disabled for more than three days. The number of boys employed in 1924, the latest year for which figures are available, was 64,799.

Mr. HAYDAY: Is the Minister satisfied that all necessary precautions have been taken to prevent such a huge toll of death and injury to young persons; and, further, is it not possible to have some inquiry into the employment of such a huge number of lads under 16 in and about our coal mines?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir; I agree that there is a deplorable toll of accidents, but, of course, a great many are very slight. Every inquiry is constantly being made as to the conditions of employment and so on.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures represent an increase or a decrease on the previous year?

Colonel LANE FOX: I must ask for notice of that question.

WAIL MEMORIAL, MACEDONIA

Mr. SMITHERS: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for War when the official inauguration and dedication of the monument on Lake Doiran, Macedonia, to British soldiers who fell there during the War, will take place; and will he take the necessary steps to ensure that the opening ceremony shall be in all respects worthy of England and of those whom the monument commemorates?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The Imperial War Graves Commission are endeavouring to arrange for an official inauguration ceremony during the coming spring or autumn. The hon. Member may rest assured that the ceremony will be in all respects worthy of the Empire and those whom the monument commemorates.

Mr. BECKETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for receiving a deputation of British ex-service men at present in receipt of Poor Law relief?

HERTFORD BRITISH HOSPITAL, PARIS.

Major - General Sir RICHARD LUCE: 75.
asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the position created at the Hertford British Hospital, Paris, by the resignation of the medical staff; and, if so, what action does he propose to take in the matter?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Over seas Trade Department): I am aware that the medical staff of the Hertford British Hospital, Paris, resigned in November, 1924. The staff has been replaced, and no action on the part of His Majesty's Government appears to be necessary.

ROYAL NAVY (NON-CONTINUOUS SERVICE).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 76.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the physical and medical standard of the non-continuous service recruits is being lowered, seeing that present serving ratings who have previously passed the highest physical and medical tests are now being invalided in large numbers, the cause in the majority of cases not being attributable to naval service?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): Assuming that the question refers to the physical and medical standards for special service seamen, it is not considered necessary to insist on quite the same high physical and medical standards for special service seamen as
for long service ratings. The proportion of naval ratings who are invalided annually is quite small.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the curious effect this will have upon the Navy, and that it may involve grave financial loss if these men are invalided?

Mr. PALING: Is that not the cause of the percentage of rejections being so high?

Mr. DAVIDSON: No; it is one of the conditions of service.

POOR PERSONS (LEGAL AID).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 11.
asked the Home Secretary if he is now in a. position to state when the Report of the Committee on Legal Aid for Poor Persons will be issued?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I under stand that the Committee's interim Report upon the criminal side of their inquiry will be published very shortly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask if the Prime Minister will be good enough to state the business for next week, and whether he can announce now the date for the Budget speech?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bald win): I am afraid I cannot announce the date for the Budget speech to-day.
With regard to the business for next week, we propose, on Monday, to take the Second Reading of the Electricity (Supply) Bill.
Tuesday and Wednesday, until a Quarter past Eight, the Committee stage of the Economy Bill.
Thursday, the Motion for Adjournment.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he does not seriously think that one day for a Bill like the Electricity Bill is too short a time? It is a Bill that introduces new principles of very great dimensions, and I trust the Prime Minister will be able to revise the arrangement which he has announced.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not put this down without having considered it, and the reasons that induced me to think that one day would be sufficient were these: First of all, it was the time given for the Electricity (Supply) Bill which was introduced in the time of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Secondly, I was not encouraged by the result of conceding extra time for the Debate on the Economy Bill, when we had the greatest difficulty in keeping the Debate going. I sat in this House for a protracted period in the eve ring when there were not more than half-a-dozen Members of all parties present. Thirdly, while it may be true to say that a new principle is involved, the whole crux of the Bill consists really in its details. Alterations will undoubtedly be made in the Bill, and we should propose to give ample time on the Report stage, which will take place in ail House, when the fullest discussion will be possible. These are the reasons, and there were no other reasons, that induced me to think the House would consider one day to be sufficient.

Mr. CLYNES: May I further submit to the Prime Minister that there really is no urgent need for disposing of the Committee stage of the Economy Bill prior to the House rising for Easter; and, while this. is not the time for debating the reasons recited by the Prime Minister for having given only one day for the Electricity Bill, might I remind him that the Bill will leave this House and go upstairs, and that, in view of the fact that its details cannot be discussed here, we should have ample time for discussing its man principles?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman's observation as to the Economy Bill. One of the difficulties that I have in fixing the date of the Budget is that I cannot fix it until the Economy Bill has gone through. That must precede the introduction of the Budget. The Economy Bill is a Bill which, although it aroused so little interest on the Second Reading, will arc use a good deal of interest on the Committee stage. My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury had the greatest difficulty in keeping a House for the Second Reading.
We had to keep a House owing to the failure of other parties to attend. We must make some progress with the Economy Bill in Committee, recognising the desire of the House, as expressed by the Amendments that have been put down, that there should be a somewhat protracted discussion upon it.

Mr. CLYNES: I think the view that some progress with the Economy Bill must be made might be accepted subject to an understanding, through the proper channels, that some further consideration should be given to the question of the time to be allotted for the Electricity Bill.

The PRIME MINISTER: If my right hon. Friend puts that, I can have no personal objection. We will do what we can to meet him.

Lieut.-Commander KE,NWORTHY: When the Prime Minister speaks of the lack of attendance during the Economy Bill Debate, is he aware that his party numbers over 400, and that it is their lack of interest in Parliament that means thin Houses here?

The PRIME MINISTER: If I am to observe the rules of proportion, I must say that I was in the House when no representatives of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's party were present.

Ordered,

" That the Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.],

QUESTIONS TO MINTSTERS MANUSCRIPT INDEX.

Mr. R. MORRISON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if you would be good enough to make a statement upon a matter of interest to some Members of this Rouse? You will remember that, a few months ago, repeated complaints were made about Members of all parties in the House putting down questions asking for information upon subjects that had already been dealt with by question in the House, and repeating questions that had already been asked; and that, as a result of those complaints, you made an announcement, some months ago, that you had arranged for the keeping, in the Library, of a register of questions, so as
to avoid the necessity of Members asking questions and getting answers that had previously been asked or given. On inquiry the other day, I discovered that it has now been decided, for some reason or other, to discontinue that register of questions in the Library, and the question I desire to ask you is, whether you are aware that the keeping of a register of questions in the Library of the House for the convenience of Members has been discontinued, and whether you will be good enough to state the reason for this action?

Mr. SPEAKER: In response to requests that were made, I gave instructions, for an experimental period, for an index of questions to be kept. I am sorry to say that the use made of it by Members had very little relation to the cost of keeping it. At the end of 10 Parliamentary weeks I found that the maximum number of inquiries in any one week was 21; the average was only 15 in a week, that is three per day; and the cost was £150 per annum. I did not feel justified, in those circumstances, in proceeding further with the experiment.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Do you think, Sir, that the Members of the House were generally aware that such an index was being kept, and was accessible to them? Personally I was not aware of the keeping of such an index.

Mr. SPEAKER: I took the trouble, in a full House, to give notice of it, and I made a special request to hon. Members to use it. I did my best to make it useful.

Mr. SPENCER: What relation does the £150 bear to the cost of repeatedly putting questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter that can be accurately assessed. It is true there is a cost involved in hon. Members repeating questions already answered. I do not think it could amount to £150 per annum, but the trouble is that the keeping of this index did not prevent repetition.

Mr. SPENCER: We have been informed that it costs £1 to answer a question. I do not know if there is any truth in that or not.

Mr. BECKETT: What are the powers of the Chair and the Table with regard to questions which have been asked? Is the decision as to whether a question is the same as has been asked before, and therefore cannot be accepted, in your hands?

Mr. SPEAKER: Neither the gentleman at the Table nor the occupant of the Chair has a complete memory which will cover everything. As far as possible, we try to inform a Member when he desires to put a question that has already been answered, but there are a good many oversights, as may be judged by answers given by Ministers.

Mr. BECKETT: The point I wished to make was that I had submitted questions, and been told they had been answered, and though I could find no record of them, I have not been able to get them through.

Mr. SPEAKER: That shows that the scrutiny is fairly good.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On the subject of the Register of Questions, I am a pretty considerable sinner in the way of putting questions. I was quite unaware of this register. I should like to submit, on behalf of some of my hon. Friends as well, that such a register was not known to us, and it would be very useful indeed, and could you give it a further period of trial?

Mr. SPEAKER: Really the experiment had a fair trial. I have not thought it right to include the £150 in my Estimate for next year.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Could not the Liberal party grant a sum of £150 from the Million Fund for this purpose?

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Colonel GRETTON: 1 wish to submit a question of privilege to your attention, arising out of an article which appeared this morning in the "Daily Mail," a newspaper with a large circulation, and again this evening in the "Evening News." It appears En the "Daily Mail" on page 10. It is headed
The Electricity Bill Battle.
It calls attention to a meeting which, it is understood, is to be held upstairs
during the course of this afternoon. It goes on to state that Ministers in charge of the Bill will then
see the depth of the plan which is being engineered by interested members of the Conservative party to wreck the Bill.
It states that
 The real opponents are a handful of Conservative Members of Parliament in fluential by the fact that they have sat in the House for a number of years and are directly interested in the control of electricity supply undertakings.
Then there is a paragraph that refers to someone who is apparently anony-mous, and the next paragraph goes on to state:
 The opposition is being organised skilfully, however, and the names of 'interested' persons are being kept largely in the background while the 'Die-Hard' up-holders of the rights and privileges of Parliament are being encouraged to attack the scheme as an infringement of those principles.
Then there are some remarks which are not important, and a list of the names of 28 Members of the House is added, among which mine is included. I submit that it is improper for any journal to state, or to insinuate, that Members of this House are influenced by improper or corrupt motives in the action they take. The first paragraph I have read plainly makes an insinuation and a statement of that kind. It is to seine extent undoubtedly qualified by the second paragraph I have read, which states that the persons who are interested are keeping themselves largely in the background. The concluding lines of that paragraph, I submit, insinuate that several Members of the House included in this list are being influenced by persons with corrupt motives and therefore are partaking in a corrupt practice. That, I submit, is a breach of the privilege of the House and an attempt to intimidate the 28 Members whose names appear in the list that has been printed, and others, from the free exercise of their conscience and their judgment in carrying out their duties ac Members of this House. In regard to myself, I think I need hardly say I have no interest whatever in any electrical undertaking. My only interest is that which is probably shared by all other Members in the House, that I am a user of electricity for light, and to a certain extent for power. I submit that the
names of Members of Parliament should not be published and used in this way and subjected to gross insinuations for which there is no ground or justification.

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman submit any Motion?

Colonel GRETTON: No; I am submitting this matter to your judgment and seeking your advice.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move, "That, the Editor be brought to the Bar of the House."

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is for me to express an opinion. It was only brought to my notice at Question time, so that I have not had sufficient time to examine it carefully. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman submits a Motion, that the passages complained of be referred to the Committee of Privileges, it will be within his power to do that.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move,
That the passages complained of in the "Daily Mail" newspaper of this day he referred to the Committee of Privileges.
At the same time, I apologise to you, Sir, for not having brought this matter to your attention at a much earlier hour in the day. I regret that I had not studied the "Daily Mail" with attention this morning.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: May I ask whether that is strictly the correct form, or whether the proper method of procedure is not a Motion on which this House should decide whether it is a breach of the privileges of this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is for the hon. and gallant Member who first raised the question. There are two forms of the Motion which may be made. I under stand the hon. and gallant Member to move, "That the passages complained of be referred to the Committee of Privileges."

Mr. BASIL PETO: I beg to second the Motion. In doing so, I wish to state that it appears to me that the statements read out by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) are not only a gross breach of privilege, but are un true; certainly untrue in respect of the majority, and, I believe, in respect of all the Members mentioned in the Paper. With regard to myself, I wish to state
that, with the hon. and gallant Member, I am one of those-who has been pilloried in the Press as moving this House for interested motives of my own. Personally, I have never had any interest in any electrical undertaking whatever, and I am confident that my colleagues who have put their names to the Amendment on the Paper are also in the same position themselves.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I would like to ask, in the event of it being decided that the matter should be referred to the Committee of Privileges, whether the editor or the author of the article will have an opportunity of appearing and endeavouring to substantiate his case?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is impossible to anticipate what the Report of the Committee will be. There is a Standing Committee of Privileges of the House, and we cannot anticipate what their decision will be.

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask if the Report of the Committee of Privileges on this matter will be debatable by the House? Will there be an opportunity of discussing the Report, when it is brought forward by the Committee of Privileges?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid there is some risk of the House rushing to some conclusion before it is really thoroughly aware of the subject which is under discussion. I can quite understand the indignation of hon. Friends of mine, judging from the passages which have just been read by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). At the same time, the question was addressed by him to Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker has told the House that he has had no opportunity of considering this very important point. I do suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend, now that he has safeguarded the position by having raised the question, it would be a far wiser course to adjourn the matter at this moment, and to give Mr. Speaker an opportunity of giving a considered judgment upon it, so that the House should at least have the benefit of advice from him before it proceeds further in the matter. The matter, I quite agree, is a grave one, but it is one of which many of us have heard this afternoon for the first time. I myself had neither heard of, nor read, anything about it.

Mr. D. HERBERT: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is not one of the most cherished privileges of this House that the House itself and no Member of the House, however dignified he may be, should decide whether a certain matter is or is not a breach of the privileges of the House?

Mr. CLYNES: In considering, as no doubt you will, the observations which have just been made by the Prime Minister, I will ask you to take into account what is the obvious feeling of the House as to the nature and terms of the breach of privilege which has been brought to your notice. Although we on this side of the House are hardened in the matter of Press implications and charges, I think the matter which has been brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) is one on which the House ought now to decide and have it referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. THURTLE: May I press the point I put to you as to whether the Report of the Committee will he debatable by the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: That depends upon whether time is asked for and arranged for. It will not come automatically before the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I presume that this question is debatable, and, in a very few words, I propose to oppose this Motion, and, if I can get any one to tell with me, I shall divide the House against it. In the first place, this matter has been brought before Parliament without proper notice. I have read the article in the "Evening News." I have not read the article in the "Daily Mail." I have seen it, but not read it. I read the one last night, and, although I quite sympathise with hon. Members who feel that their honour has been in any way assailed, and I hasten to say that that part of it has no effect on anyone in this House—there would be no support for any such view in any quarter of the House—nevertheless, I look upon the article itself as not being outside the hounds of fair comment. I am speaking from my recollection of the "Evening News" article last night.

Mr. D. HERBERT: 0n a point of Order. May I ask you whether the hon. and gallant Member is in order in discussing an article that appeared in the "Evening News" last night when the one complained of is that which appeared in the "Evening News" to-day?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On that point of Order. I think both were brought forward in the indictment. [HON. MEMBERS "No!" and other HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: May I point out that the Motion before the House is, "That the passages complained of be referred to the Committee of Privileges." I do not think that the House would desire, or that it would be proper, to enter into the merits on a Motion of this kind. The Motion submitted is not a Motion that this constituted a breach of the privileges of the House. It will be for the Committee of Privileges to judge, if the Motion be carried. The fact of my allowing the Motion indicates that in my view, as far as I have been able to see the Paper, there is a prima facie case which might be referred by the House to this Committee.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am quite aware of the Motion, and I put it to you and to the House that if, every time Members object to some criticism of their action or supposed action in the papers, they are going to move a Motion that it be referred to the Committee of Privileges, that is a threat to the independence of the Press, and I do not think it is in conformity with the best interests of the House that such a matter should be ventilated in this way. The 21 Members whose names are given in the article are not directly accused of any improper motives. [Interruption.] I have read the article in the "Evening News," and the 21 Members are not in any way—

Mr. SPEAKER: Clearly, that is anticipating, whereas the Question is whether it is the pleasure of the House that it should be referred to the Standing Committee which deals with this sort of matter.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On a point of Order. I should like to ask, first of all, whether the Committee, if it be appointed, will inquire into anything but the one
question, namely, whether this does constitute a breach, or whether, for in stance, it can go into any merits? That is the first question. Assuming that the Committee reports that it is a breach of privilege, I take it that their Report will then be submitted to you and to the House, and that then will be the time for debating the merits. I should like to ask, on a point of Order, whether that will not be the case?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not myself sat on this Committee. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot say anything about its procedure. It will obviously consider and report on the matter which is referred to it.

Mr. BECKETT rose—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will not stand between the hon. Member and the House for more than one moment. I consider that this action will set up a dangerous precedent. It is being taken in a hurry obviously. You, yourself, Sir, have only just been informed of such de tails as are available, and I think the House would be far better advised to follow the advice of the Prime Minister himself and to allow this matter to be considered further. I, therefore, wish to oppose the Motion.

Mr. BECKETT: May I ask, in the event of this Motion being carried and the matter going to the Committee of Privileges, whether, when they are inquiring into this charge with which I am sure nobody wishes to associate himself, they will also inquire into the general tenor of this paper? This is only one minor instance among many where hon. Members of this House have been accused in this way.

Mr. THURTLE: May I put a question to the Prime Minister on this matter? May I ask him whether, in the event of this matter being referred to the Committee of Privileges and the Committee of Privileges submitting a report on it, he will undertake that time will be given for a discussion of that report?

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: I am one of the 28 Members whose names are given, and I want to say that I have not
and I never have had an electricity share of any kind, and I am all the more surprised since this is the first time that I have heard anything about it. I think it was in the "Daily Mail" this morning. I had not seen it until now, but since it raises a question of the personal honour of Members of this House I think the House is bound to deal with it at the earliest possible moment; and if the Committee of Privileges will not, the honour of the House demands that time should be given for this House to deal with it.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Perhaps in this matter I am not altogether un interested, as my name is one of those 28 Members. Yet I have only a question of principle at heart, and have no interest in any electrical undertaking in this country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Paid servant!"] No, I am not a paid servant of anybody, as some hon. Members there are.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is quite wrong in introducing an allegation of that kind on the very matter which we are now discussing, and I must call upon him to withdraw.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: Certainly, if that be your ruling, but perhaps you will allow me to say that they called it at me first. I entirely withdraw on your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. JOHNSTON: On a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER: Allow me to deal with the point of Order. Surely, if it be a question of the honour of hon. Members of this House, it is not improving the matter to debate it in this way. It would be far better to refer it at once to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. SPENCER: There has been a mistake made. I quite sympathise with the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Major Boyd-Carpenter), who made the allegation. He thought that my hon. Friend here was referring to himself. The only persons to whom he was referring were himself and others who had been called paid agents. The hon. and gallant Member misunderstood him. That is how the mistake has arisen.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am very glad to have that explanation.

Major BOYD-CARPENTER: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Spencer). I apologise thoroughly to him and his party but, at any rate, it was within the hearing of the House that an observation was made as to paid servants, which I took to be applied to myself. In the circumstances, it was natural that I should so apply lt. In the circumstances of the discussion, I willingly withdraw—not only in deference to the ruling of the Chair but in consideration for hon. Members—any insinuation which I made, because of the handsome way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe has explained the matter.

Question, "That the passages complained of in the 'Daily Mail' newspaper of this day be referred to the Committee of Privileges," put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm the construction of certain works by the Bristol Waterworks Company; to provide for the consolidation and conversion of the capital and loan capital of the company; and for other purposes." [Bristol Water Bill [Lords.]

Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Bristol General Cemetery Company; and for other purposes." [Bristol Cemetery Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts, 1887 and 1891." [Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Bill [Lords.]

Bristol Water Bill [Lords],

Bristol Cemetery BiLL [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third-time."

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. HARNEY: The party to which I belong have availed themselves of this opportunity to bring forward for discussion the question of National Health Insurance. It is fifteen years since that great Measure has become part of the law of the country. Its membership is over 15,000,000 and we have recently for the first time had an account of its doings during all that period. It is gratifying to those of us who are members of the Liberal party to know that after that prolonged investigation by high and impartial experts they have, without any qualification, commended the success of the Measure, approved of the hope with which it was started, amidst jeers and scorn, and vindicated the high confidence and the bold declarations and courage with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) introduced the Bill.
No more suitable time could be found for considering in a general way how that great experiment has worked. What are the four or five outstanding features? The first is, that before the scheme was introduced there existed in this country institutions which by voluntary action did a great deal of the work which the National Health Insurance Act took in hand. That work was done by friendly societies, by trade unions on their benefit side, by collecting societies and industrial insurance branches. It was made an essential principle on turning these sporadic, voluntary efforts into one national compulsory system, that there should be embedded in its framework the organisation and machinery of these societies. It was with difficulty that they were induced to lend their co-operation, because some of them had been very successful, while others had only just saved themselves from insolvency. The
benefits that were given were in every case proportionate to the contributions that were received.
When it was put to these societies that they should join in this great national co-operate scheme, where there would be a flat rate of benefits, they naturally said, "If you are going to have a fiat rate it means that some of us who are prosperous may be deprived of the extra benefits we are in the habit of getting." Because of that, it was made a distinct and clear bargain that if these societies came in they would be shorn of none of the privileges of success which had been theirs heretofore. That was told them on platforms and in this House and it forms a part of the Statute itself. That is important for this reason, that whatever may be the views of the Government as to the further administration of this system, they have to hear in mind that they should regard as sacrosanct the accumulations of the more fortunate societies, because unless they do so they are depriving them of the privilege of utilising among their members the surplus which is due to their own successful management and their own wise selection. I am glad to say that the Royal Commission found itself justified in saying that so wise has been this feature of the. societies and so efficient and so honest have been their methods that, although in the large volume of their Report there are many suggestions made, there is no suggestion that this work should he taken away from these approved societies. Those members of the societies who have given their time and their energy and skill through out the country in the management of the societies must be very proud of that compliment which has been paid to them, and they ought to be very grateful to the party which gave them the opportunity of exhibiting what they could do.
There is another feature of this great Measure upon which I should like to make some comment. It is often spoken of as though this National Health Insurance system is a Government Department. It is nothing of the kind. Its structure and the principles upon which it rests make it an entire entity. The funds at its disposal are due to the contributions of its members. If it became insolvent, it would have to meet its difficulties by a
levy upon its members. That is a very important thing to bear in mind when we consider all the adminuistration and the legislation to which it is subject. Once the logical position is recognised, and it must he recognised, that the National Insurance scheme differs in no legal respect from any other of the large insurance bodies in the country, there is no more justification legal, moral or otherwise for dealing with the accumulation of its funds than there would be for dealing with the funds on which bonuses are paid by private insurance companies, indeed less. If the necessities of the State would justify it in drawing upon the accumulations of private bodies, one would have thought that the very last upon which they would lay their hands would be a private body formed in order to look after the health of the very poorest of the poor.
Another feature of this great system is the contributions. In reality there are on y two contributors, the employers and the employed. The part which the State plays is often regarded as that of contributor, but it is not so. The State says, "You contribute. You create your fund, out of which the benefits pass, and we, since the community is interested in the health of its members, will to the extent of two-ninths foot the bill that you will have to pay away in benefits as and when you have to pay them."
The fraction fixed in 1911 was the basis upon which the whole structure of the finance of that Bill was built. Whatever else was varied the two-ninths was in tended to he constant. When my right hon. Friend was speaking the other night he made some remark of the same character, as true coming from his mouth as from mine, that the two-ninths was a fixed figure, intended to remain what ever else might change, and he used the expression about taking feathers from the pillow of the sick man, a metaphor which captivated the House then and the country since. In reply the Minister said that he wondered the right hon Gentleman dwelt so much upon the two-ninths, because at the time when he was Prime Minister the proportionate benefit in the case of women was only one-fourth and that was altered to two-ninths. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Apparently the pillow of the sick man is sacred, hot the pillow of the sick woman is not so."
The right hon. Gentleman omitted to ay this: what was suggested from the Government side and what my right lion. Friend was dealing with was really taking away feathers from the pillow. But what it was said he had done when he was Prime Minister was not to take feathers from the pillow of either the man or the woman, but to put more feathers into the pillows of both, and at the same time as he was doing that he said: "Let us have uniformity, and, since we are making the pillow softer and bigger, let us see that the same number of feathers in each are plucked from the Government pigeon."

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The amount of the Government contribution would increase.

Mr. HARNEY: The Report has dealt with this, and I commend the passage to the right hon. Gentleman. If I remember rightly, last July, in a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in reply to a suggestion coming from a member of his own party, the right hon. Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne), he was at pains to lay stress upon the inadvisability of making any change then, because a report was about to come out, to which it was hoped that proper and due respect would be paid. Here is a passage from the Report which is probably so familiar to the right hon. Gentleman that he will not listen to it:
While we have every sympathy for such proposals, we feel that there may come a time, and, in fact, there has come a time, when the State may justifiably turn from searching its conscience to exploring its purse. We, therefore, make the definite recommendation that only such extensions or modifications as involve no expenditure other than what can be met with the pre sent financial resources, are practicable. We consider that the scheme should be self-supporting, subject to the payment by the Exchequer of its present proportionate share of the cost of benefit.
Is that remark in the report the explanation for the change of attitude of the right hon. Gentleman between July and March; If so, what is his answer to his statement in July, "I will not fall in with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman now, because I am waiting for the report," and when the report comes out it says that if there is one thing you are not to touch it is the two-ninths. Yet that is the very first thing the Government do touch. At all events,
the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Hillhead had this to recommend it. He said: "Reduce your contributions in order to relieve industry. Moreover, if contributors are going to get less, ask them to pay less." But the right hon. Gentleman says: "While we would not. reduce contributions in order to relieve industry, whilst we will net do the fair thing of asking those to pay less who were going to get less, we will reduce the contribution, not to relieve industry, but to save the face of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we will do it so that the poor contributor will be paying the same and receiving less." I would like to know upon what ground of logic or of morality the right hon. Gentleman can now say—having rejected with scorn the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Hillhead, when he said "Give less and ask less"—"We will reduce the income out of which benefits are paid, not in the interests of industry, but in. the interests of the Chancellor of the Exchequer."
That brings me to another feature and the last I will deal with—the nature of the benefits under this scheme. There were two classes of benefits. One was a mini mum benefit to be given to everyone, disablement, sickness and maternity. But that was not really the main benefit in the contemplation of the right hon. Gentleman. The central idea of the whole scheme was the grading up of the health of the community. Everyone was to have, in any event, certain essential curative benefits, but these were gradually to develop into preventive benefits. Such things as were within the financial scope of the weaker societies were made common ground, but the stronger societies were to have such higher benefits as their funds would permit. A section in the Act of Parliament says so, and a schedule is there actually setting out what those benefits were. The first class of benefits was assured. But the second class of benefits, what were they to come out of? What are the sources from which they come? They come primarily from surpluses, and, secondly, from extended benefits. How do you get your surpluses? As I have indicated, it is impossible to lay down a flat rate of contributions that will be sufficient for the average weak society, without of necessity running into the surpluses in the successful society. That
was the first source of these additional benefits. What was the second? When you were starting this scheme, bringing everybody into line, of all ages, it was necessary to make some provision whereby those over 16 would stand on a like footing with those at 16, and you did it by a very ingenious and sound expedient. You said, "Let the Insurance Fund—not the Government—credit each one above the age of 16 with an amount that would represent what would be his insurable value had he been contributing since he was 16." Those were mere paper credits, but there had to be some method arranged for gradual redemption of them. What was that? You added15/9d,—that, I think, was the figure—to the contribution that otherwise would have been sufficient to give the benefits pro vided. You said," That is something which is to be placed into a sinking fund, and in the course of 20 years it wilt entirely wipe out these paper credits. At the end of that period there will be an overflow, and this will he available for further surplus benefits."
It is obvious that if you reduce the stream that flows into the reservoir out of which these benefits come, whether they be minimum, additional or extended, you must hit these benefits in some way. You hit the extended benefits by lengthening the time within which the paper credits will be wiped off. In the year 1917, after this new scheme had been in operation for five or six years, it was found as was expected that some of the societies ran into surpluses and that others fell into deficits. There was a Departmental inqury. The result of that was not to bring about a recommendation that the contribution should be reduced, because of the surpluses, but that the contribution that went to benefits was too little instead of too much. The suggestion was then made, and afterwards carried out in the 1918 Act, that you should divert from the Sinking Fund, which it had been at first arranged was to be wiped out in about 20 years, a portion of its stream and form of the diverted portion two channels known as the contingency and central funds, so that those who were in deficiency would be got out of it by these means, and those in surplus would have further surpluses. I ought to read to the House one paragraph—

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not sure that I follow the hon. and learned Member. It appears to me that he is discussing in advance the Committee stage of the Economy Bill. I must remind him of two things. First of all, we must not anticipate what has been set down by the House for later consideration; and, secondly, the Consolidated Fund Bill is governed by the same rules as Committee of Supply. Only administrative matters can be discussed and not matters that require legislation.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On the point of Order. The recommendations of the Royal Commission propose that there should be extended benefits, not by new legislation but under the Act of 1911. These can be granted under the existing law. It is perfectly true the Government propose to alter the law, but our suggestion is that the recommendations should be carried out as they are and that can be Gone without altering the law at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly in so far as that is the case, the hon. and learned Member is in order.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): On the point of Order. I do not know if I correctly heard the point which the right hon. Gentleman was putting, but I understand he was suggesting that the recommendations of the Royal Commission could be carried out without legislation. He is mistaken there.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I am not.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What the Royal Commission recommend is that certain additional cash benefits—benefits in the shape of cash payments to the dependants of insured persons—should be made statutory. That would require legislation.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: So far as it is necessary to introduce legislation, but undoubtedly under the Act of 1911 these payments to dependants form part of the additional benefits which can be carried out, as soon as there is a valuation, by order of the Commissioners and with the sanction of the Minister of Health.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Even that is not quite correct.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Surely the right hon. Gentleman, if die reads these recommendations, will appreciate that a number of them can be dealt with by administrative action.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Not this one.

Mr. DAVIES: Probably not this one, but there are some of these recommendations which would not require legislation.

Sir JOHN SIMON: May I respectfully submit that there is a Schedule to the Act of 1911 headed "Additional Benefits." They are 14 in number and include, for example, dental benefit. One of the recommendations of the Royal Com mission is that without any loss of time, available money should be devoted for that purpose. I respectfully submit that to ask the Government whether they pro pose by suitable administrative action to encourage and secure the carrying out of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, rather than allow funds to he diverted to other purposes is strictly within the four corners of order in this Debate.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): It is perfectly true that certain recommendations of this Com mission can be carried into effect without legislation, but the principal one which has been the subject of the hon. and learned Member's remarks this afternoon dealing with dependants, is obviously subject to legislation.

Mr. HARNEY: I only mentioned it.

Sir K. WOOD: If one examines the Schedule to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has just referred, one will find, it is true these additional benefits in the terms set out in the Schedule, but the recommendations of the Royal Commission do not follow the terms set out in the Schedule. What they recommend is that payment by allowance should be made to women and children.

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members know a great deal more than I do about the intricacies of these matters. I must request them to confine themselves to matters of administration and not to trench on matters of legislation.

Mr. HARNEY: As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary was doing me the credit of anticipating that I would talk about dependants. The point I am on is this: I take it I am in order in discussing the general working of this Act since 1911, and with reference to that, I was about to point out that it is quite contrary to the principle on which this Act was framed that any portion of the moneys that run either into surpluses or into the sinking fund should be interfered with. I was not saying anything about legislative action; I was only describing the principle on which the Act rests, and I was about to point out that in 1918, after the Ryan Commission had sat and had come to the conclusion that so much money was passing into the sinking fund that it involved in deficiency the weaker societies while leaving surpluses to the stronger, they at once corrected that state of things by dividing the stream flowing into the sinking fund, one portion continuing to flow, as before, and the other going into the contingency fund and the central fund. These were two specialised funds, the function of which really was to adjust debits in the case of deficiencies, and to increase credits in the case of surpluses. That had the effect, naturally, of putting off the blessed day when the sinking fund would be worked out. What I read from this Report is, that, as a quid pro quo for what the Commission recommended and as an inducement to those who wished to adhere to the principle under lying the Act, namely, the sacredness of the original sources, the Commissioners made a proposal. What they said was:
 We are aware that objections may be entertained to this proposal "—
that is the proposal to lessen the amount going into the sinking fund—
On the ground that the present generation of insured persons have formed the expectation of an extension of benefit in 1932. But we consider this disadvantage is more than met by the following facts. (a) The scheme which we propose to recommend will leave unimpaired the rights of members of societies with a disposable surplus….(c) the scheme offers substantial prospect to many societies of the provision of increased additional benefits at a date considerably in advance of 1932.
In other words, what they say is: We hold ourselves not to be justified in dealing in any way with the stream out of
which these benefits are flowing, except to increase it. We certainly should not diminish it, but, though we are deferring the great day when you will fall in for your extended benefit, and we are giving you this in exchange, that such of you as are successful will have still larger surpluses. I say, therefore, that I hope the Government will not yield to the temptation, administratively or in any other way, of seeking to diminish the income out of which these benefits are now derived. It is bound to have three mischievous effects.

Sir K. WOOD: On a point of Order Is it in order to discuss the intentions of the Government in the Economy Bill, to seek to diminish certain surpluses?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have already ruled that we must not at this stage discuss the Economy Bill.

Mr. HARNEY: I will blot it from my mind; I will forget that I was in this House a few days ago, arid heard it explained. Let us say that it does not exist. Am I not justified in making this broad and general survey of the operations of this Act during the last 15 years, and of the views formed upon it by the Royal Commission? Am I not justified in expressing what the Royal Commission has expressed, the hope that the Government will give effect to the view that, whatever else may be done, there will be no cutting down of the present Government contribution? I do not know what they are going to do, but I express the hope that they will pay attention to these words.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member suggests that the Economy Bill does not exist, but, looking at the Order Paper, I find it set down as the second Order for Monday next, and so, in the Parliamentary sense, it certainly does exist.

Mr. HARNEY: I have only this to say. In trying to press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government the inadvisability of not paying the utmost attention to the Royal Commission's suggestions, I would point out that it would have a further bad effect, and I will read some words to show the bad effect which it would have. The words are:
If you reduce the contribution you must add to the number of societies that will be deficient, and decrease the number of societies that have surpluses. It is certain that you are going to throw the whole scheme into discredit if you are going to put a large number of societies into deficiency."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 22nd July, 1925; col. 2369, Vol. 186.]
I adopt those words, which were used as lately as July last by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Borne). I feel as a member of the old guard of a once great party, which will grow again to the same dimensions, that we have something of which to be proud.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman quoting from me?

5.0 P.M.

Mr. HARVEY: Not now. The last thing I would expect would be that the right hon. Gentleman would have so expressed himself, however much he might have felt those sentiments. It is a great satisfaction to know that the scheme which was so bravely and boldly and with so much originality started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and which met with scoffs, jeers and ridicule from the party opposite, has now, after 15 years, been acknowledged by all to be the foundation of the social services of this country, and that the very parts of it which were most condemned and which were most insisted upon by my right hon. Friend, namely, the utilisation of the approved societies and increased benefits from surpluses, have been the parts that a body of experts which sat for eight or nine months has now said are the most fundamentally sound of the whole scheme. In a Report of 200 pages, in which they have many recommendations and alterations to suggest, they all say, minority and majority, that this part of the scheme is impregnable and should stand.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: To those who remember or have been told of the Debates which took place in this House and outside at the time when the National Health Insurance Bill was first introduced and discussed, to-day's Debate must be full of information, interest and significance. In those days my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was told that he would never be able to fulfil his promises, and they were described by the
opponents of the Bill as being far too rash, The benefits, he was told, would never emerge from the Welsh mists from which they were supposed to come. We have now had 15 years' experience of the working of the Act, and we find that those prophecies have been proved, like so many prophecies, to be without foundation. Not only was my right hon. Friend not discouraged by those prophecies, hut. he and his colleagues had the prudence, in the face of that criticism, to insert in the National Health Insurance Act of 1911, not only certain immediate payments, but to include in that Act a section which said that after a, lapse of a certain time and the happening of certain things, there should be extended benefits, and these benefits were set out in a part of one of the schedules.
We have had 15 years' experience of the working of the Act. The operation of the Act has been examined by an impartial Commission consisting of experienced people. They have shown that not only were those gloomy prophecies not fulfilled, but they added that the hopes held out by the Act in 1911 had been achieved and that more was capable of achievement, provided only that the Government was prepared to carry out the provisions of that Act alone, without any amending legislation—and with amending legislation even more could be done. The Report of the Royal Commission is a long document, and I am not going into it with any detail, but there arc two or three things which the Report makes perfectly clear. There is one thing it makes clear beyond any doubt at all, and that is that the Act has been a complete success. It. did not need a Royal Commission to say that, because there are millions of people all over the country who know from practical experience that it has been a success. I think I am right in saying that all social workers and people concerned for the health of the community, so far from wishing to see any impediment placed in the operation of the Act, are only too anxious to see it developed in other directions which will act greatly to the benefit of the community as a whole.
The Report of the Royal Commission makes it clear that, with certain modifications, even now a margin can be made available which would provide a sum of about 7s. a year in the case of men, and 3s. 9d. in the case of women, and they
propose certain ways of utilising the surpluses which are available. For example, they propose that provision should be made out of these surpluses for the continuation of the existing medical benefits after the year 1926. Even after allowing for that they say there will be a sum of about £2,250,000 available for extended benefits out of the National Health Insurance Fund, which in 1911 we were told would be bankrupt in the course of a few years. These surpluses are avail able now in 1926, although the Fund has had to bear exceptional burdens, involved by the War. There is to be a sum of £2,250,000. I agree, of course, that there were certain provisions made to meet the special difficulties which arose, but notwithstanding that, the fact remains that despite 15 years working, the Fund stands to-day in a position in which, as the Royal Commission says, it will have a large surplus at its disposal.
The Royal Commission recommends that this surplus shall be used for extended benefits. At the moment I am not concerned with the particular benefits which the Commission suggests. But there are provisions in the Act of 1911 for extended benefit—purposes for which some of this money could be utilised. There are in the Fourth Schedule of the Act 14 extended benefits. If the Government are not prepared to include in their legislative programme some amendment of the Act. let them use some of these surpluses for the purpose of providing some of these extended benefits which are provided for in the Act of 1911. The last speaker referred to dental treatment, which is one of the 14 benefits. There is no one, I imagine, who would say that dental treatment is not a matter which is of the most vital importance to the country. As medical science develops, one thing which is emphasised more and more is the urgency of paying greater attention to the teeth of the people of our country. There is a matter on which the Government could well utilise part of the surplus; it is within the four corners of the scheme of the 1911 Act, and would do a very great deal in the way of improving the health of the community as a whole.
The Royal Commission proposes also that there should be an addition to the sickness benefit of 2s. in respect of each
dependant. The first additional benefit in the Schedule of the Act is medical treatment and attendance for any person dependent upon the insured person, and the third is increased sickness benefit or disablement benefit in the case of members of the Society or if such members have any children wholly or partly dependent on them, so that the Government cannot run away from the possibility of using these surpluses for the benefit of insured persons by saying that these things do not come within the operation of the 1911 Act.
The fact of the matter is that they are not going to use the surpluses for this object for another reason. Having surpluses is such an extraordinary thing for this Government, that they think when ever there are surpluses the only thing they can do is to get hold of them as soon as they can. For that reason, insured persons are going to be deprived of surpluses built up by their contributions and the efficient management of the societies responsible for putting the scheme into operation. I join with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) in pressing on the Government that they should do what the Act of 1911 was intended to do, that is, increasingly as the money becomes available, to pro vide the benefits for which the insured persons contribute, and which are sorely needed in the interests of the health of the community

Sir K. WOOD: I confess I feel some little difficulty this afternoon in making the few observations that I am going to make upon the two speeches to which we have just listened. I rather took it that the Debate this afternoon was going to be a great attack on the Government as a sort of preliminary to the Committee stage of the Economy Bill. In view of the ruling of Mr. Speaker, I think it will be somewhat more difficult for me to controvert at any considerable length certain of the rather many misstatements which have been made, but I should like to make some general observations upon some of the points which have been raised.
In the first place, I join with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in recording my own satisfaction at the consider able success of the National Insurance Scheme, and I congratulate the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in that connection. I do not suppose he remembers it, but I remember very well—I was one of the first 20 members to be invited by him to join the Health Insurance Advisory Committee, many years ago. As far as my attitude to this Measure is concerned, there was never any question about it, for I always believed in it. Having said that, I think it is only fair to say that I suppose no Act of Parliament has been amended so often in so short a time as this National Insurance Act, 1911, has been. It has, of necessity, been amended nine times. I am afraid it is rather an unfair criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, who said once he believed it was amended nine times in order to put right all the concessions that had been made in Committee when the Measure vas being put forward.
I am also glad to confirm the statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman who first spoke, that the approved societies of the country have fully justified themselves in connection with the administration of this Measure. I do so all the more because, while we ale considering this. Report this afternoon, we might pay same passing attention to the Labour Minority Report. I do not know whether members of the Committee have read it. There was a Minority Report signed in connection with this inquiry by the four Labour members of the Commission, and they took a. very different view—and no doubt when the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) speaks he will say whether he agrees with it or not—of the work of the approved societies. They said that the approved societies ought to cease altogether—not only the trade unionist approved societies, but all the societies. They said their work should cease and the whole of this scheme was to be smashed, and, at any rate, as far an this part of it is concerned, the duties the approved societies should be handed over to the local authorities of the country. I should he glad to know whether that is the official policy of the Labour party in this connection, because while approved societies are naturally anxious about their funds at the present time, I should think they are equally anxious about their existence.. I suppose if the Labour party had their way we
should finish with the approved societies altogether. At any rate, that is the very strong recommendation of the Minority Report, consisting of Labour representatives. They want the municipalisation of insurance and they want the societies to finish and their duties to be handed over to the local authorities.
Speaking on behalf of the Government, we are very anxious indeed to see the approved societies continuing their work, and I fully agree with the view of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken so far as that matter is concerned. He raised a more controversial matter when he recalled the beginning of the scheme and the pledge which was given to approved societies in connection with their surpluses. I think I was present at almost every important interview that took place in connection with the negotiations between the approved societies and the Government of that day, and the only pledge, as I understand it, that was ever given—and I invite anyone to try to find a different one—was that the approved societies should fully reap the advantage of any surpluses which came about as the result of good management and efficiency. But that is a. very different matter from the state of affairs that we find to-day, because if the House will look for a moment at the Report of the Com mission, they will see that both the Majority Report and the Minority Report reveal very different reasons for the undoubtedly handsome surpluses which now exist. If the House will look at page 88, paragraph 190, of the Report, they will see this:
This margin is due to extraneous causes, among the most important of which is the general increase in the rate of interest on post-War investments, to which we have referred above. No Income Tax is payable on the interest earnings of approved societies, and the members of those societies accordingly secure the full benefit of this increase and are able to claim additional State grant in respect of a rate which itself reflects the weight of a national burden from which they are free. Having regard to the fact that the additional resources made available to the insured in this way and in the appreciation of investments which has already been realised will go almost in their entirety to supplement the benefits originally provided by Parliament, it is clear that the relations between the general body of insured persons and the Exchequer are more favourable to the former than has been generally supposed hitherto.

Mr. HARNEY: Read on

Sir K. WOOD: It continues:
While we have felt bound here to ex plain the situation in which this result arises, we do not desire what we have said to be regarded as qualifying the recommendations which we make in later chapters of our Report in regard to the application of any margin in the existing scheme.

Sir J. SIMON: Will the hon. Gentleman say what those recommendations in sub stance are?

Sir K. WOOD: They are as to the disposal of the surpluses referred to.

Mr. HARNEY: Is it not recommended that the Government's contribution should remain unaltered?

Sir K. WOOD: My point was the pledge which was referred to by the hon. Gentle man, who put it very broadly indeed and practically stated that there was a pledge given to the approved societies that any surplus that might be found should for ever remain with them, and that that should never be altered. My point was that the only pledge given—and it was the pledge read by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in his speech the other day—was the pledge in relation to efficiency and good management, and that is the pledge that was constantly given during the discussion of the 1911 Act. I may say that that is the view equally taken by the Minority Report of the Royal Commission. They say, on page 307, paragraph 42, under the heading "The Incentive to Good Management ":
 We agree with our colleagues that the effect of this incentive upon the valuation results is grossly exaggerated, and that other factors, occupational and otherwise, are the predominating causes of the great disparities in the surpluses declared.
Anybody, I venture to say, who studies the position of National Health Insurance to-day, apart altogether from any controversy which may be immediately impending, will agree that when this scheme was originally formed, obviously certain of the actuarial calculations must have been of a very tentative character. The actuary, Sir Alfred Watson, I remember very well, in those days had very little on which to base his estimate except certain tables of the Manchester Unity. No one had wide experience of a scheme of this character, and he framed a scheme as best he could upon the data that were available. The
pledge that was given to the approved societies was a pledge in connection with good management and efficiency, but the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, who, I am sure, has the welfare of the approved societies at heart as much as anybody in this House, knows that nobody supposed that in those days, when that basis was formed, the result of the second valuation would be a surplus of some £65,000,000, and that it should he available to the approved societies of the country.
I will tell the House why I venture to say that that is so, because if he thought anything like that sum would be avail able, instead of including the ordinary benefits of the scheme, as he did, in making a statutory contract with the assured, he certainly would not, nor would any prudent statesman charged with the conduct of the Measure, have allowed a large surplus of that kind to be at the disposal of a very large number of societies, who might use their surplus, some in one way and others in another way. Obviously, if any such result had been anticipated, a very different Measure would have been produced to the House. I venture to say that the Com mission are perfectly right in stating, as they did in their Report, which was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health the other day, that obviously, when you come to look at a scheme of this kind, at this stage, after it has run for some 15 years, and you see on the one hand a large number of societies successfully administering the scheme, a number of them, it is true, bordering on deficiency, and others with a very considerable surplus, you could not fairly say you were doing any harm or injustice to any insured person by saying, in the first place: "We now invite you to review this Measure, and to see whether the contributions by the employer, the employed, or the State itself should be reviewed." Obviously, the results of this scheme could never have been anticipated, and to say—

Mr. HARNEY: Has the hon. Gentleman read that they point out that the surpluses are largely accidental, due to the War, and that their continuance cannot be reckoned on?

Sir K. WOOD: That may very well be so. It is a very extraordinary thing that, notwithstanding the dreadful disasters
that were brought to so many people and institutions by the War, speaking broadly, the approved societies gained by the War, and it is true, as the hon. Gentleman said just now, that a very large portion of these surpluses is undoubtedly due to War conditions, but there is nothing either in the actuary's Report or in the Report of the Royal Commission itself which would appear to apprehend that in the future there would be any substantial lessening of the ordinary surpluses which would accrue under this scheme. A very large number of persons at the end of the first valuation thought it was a wonderful result, which could never he exceeded, yet when the second valuation came along, it was very far exceeded indeed. Therefore, the only point I am putting to the House now—because I do not want to go into the merits of the Government's Economy Bill—is that no one can get up and say fairly to their fellow countrymen to-day that we are breaking any pledge or contract by saying that the time has come for a review of the financial conditions of the scheme.
If there was one pledge more than another which the right hon. Gentleman opposite gave in connection with this scheme—and I remember it very well—it was a pledge to the approved societies of the country that they should be able to operate the scheme and to manage it. He knows as well as I do that in the initial stage of his scheme, in order to gel the co-operation of the friendly societies, the industrial societies, and the trade unions, he said: "Yes, you will all be able to work this scheme in separate societies, and if you work it well and efficiently, you shall have the advantages of your efficient management." That is true, and that was a pledge if you like, and yet I notice that, at any rate, the Labour Minority Report does not regard that as a matter which cannot be altered and that if you abolish the approved societies from this scheme you would be breaking any pledge or contract. I venture to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not know where we, in this House, should end, if we were not able to subject to review Acts of Parliament from time to time, when the necessities either of the State or of the societies themselves, warranted it. I am hoping, at some stage of the Economy Bill, to show the House that if ever there has
been a scheme which has been constantly adjusted in relation to its financial basis it has been the National Insurance Scheme, and so far from it being the ease that the House is pledged to the exact financial basis upon which the right hon. Gentleman originally formed it, and that it must always remain so, the history of the Measure proves exactly the contrary. If hon. Members look at the question of the alteration in connection with reserve values and the periods which have been altered in that connection from time to time, very vitally affecting the finances of the scheme, they will see that it has been one constant series of alterations.
It was said by the hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech this afternoon that if the societies found themselves in a deficiency, or if the framers of the scheme demanded further money, there was a Section of the Act by which they were to levy on their members or to decrease the benefits. That is perfectly true, but it was never done, and the right hon. Gentleman knows this, that when further demands were made by the medical men of the country in respect of their remuneration, it was the State that had to come to the assistance of the scheme, and on numerous occasions it has had to come to the assistance of the scheme by putting its hand into its pocket and providing much larger sums of money, to the. tune, I think, of some £24,000,000. How, then, can you say, when one party to the scheme has already put his hand into his pocket to the extent of very many millions, that you are not dealing fairly with the situation, when you say, "The time has arrived, having regard to the great prosperity of the scheme, to the difficulties in which the State finds itself at the present time, and to the fact that you are far better off than it was contemplated you would be, to make a revision, not a revision in any way affecting the statutory benefits, not a revision in any way affecting the results of the first valuation, not a revision in any way affecting the surplus of£65,000,000 under the second valuation, but something that is coming into operation in 1931?" I venture to say there never was a more slender case, or more unreasonable case put before the House of Commons, on the ground of breach of pledge or breach of contract.
Since this Measure was originally introduced, I note that exception has been taken in regard to the provisions under the Widows and Orphans Act. I cannot imagine a more grotesque statement than that which has been made. If you look at the actuarial Report on which the Com mission founded their recommendation, one of the main things pointed out to the Royal Commission was that the very fact that persons between the ages of 65 and 70 had dropped out of the scheme relieved the societies. That is a point the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. We relieve the societies to the extent that we have, and when proposals are made—I venture to say, very moderate proposals, Which might have been made much more extensive—all sorts of phrases are used that people are endeavouring to defraud the societies. There never was such a case based on such a slender foundation.

Sir J. SIMON: Was it, then, a mistake of the Government that the change was not made in the Widows' and Orphans' Act?

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is discussing the merits of the Act. It would be quite out of order.

Sir K. WOOD: I am relieved to have your ruling. As I stated at the beginning, I was in some difficulty, because of the demand made by the two hon. Gentlemen who preceded me. May I, in conclusion, say this? Reference has been made to the discussion which took place in this House on the 22nd July, 1925, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) made certain proposals in relation to the finance of the national scheme. No such proposals were made by him as have been intimated in connection with the Government proposals. My right hon. Friend, when he replied to the right hon. Gentle man, said:
 I am very glad to hear my right hon. Friend disclaim any idea of raiding the surpluses. That, in my view, would certainly be interpreted, and, I think, with some justification, as a breach of pledges which have been given to approved societies. It has been expected that the reward of efficiency of administration on their part would be the power to use these surpluses in order to give additional benefits to their
members, and to say to those who have exercised efficiency in their administration in the hope of obtaining these additional benefits, I We are going to take away that which you have by your thrift and your care accumulated,' would, it seems to me, be an unjustifiable procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1925; col. 2367, Vol. 186.]
If I may say so, a very careful statement, as one would expect from my right hon. Friend. He emphasised what was constantly emphasised by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, when he gave his pledges to the approved societies in connection with this scheme, that it was their care and efficiency in administration which had earned their surpluses, and not the matters referred to in the Royal Commission's Report, which were altogether in a different category. I think this afternoon we could have received the Report of the Royal Com mission as a very valuable Report indeed. We are very grateful to the Chairman and members of the Commission for the very careful way they have examined this scheme, and we can look forward to the future administration of this Measure, because many valuable suggestions have been made which will greatly increase the efficiency of the National Health Insurance scheme. Lastly, we can certainly assure the people of this country that neither through the recommendations of this Report nor of the Government is there any likelihood of the health of the nation being impaired. As far as health progress is concerned, we certainly have a very excellent encouragement, and we look forward with confidence to the future, and say that there is no ground for apprehension from any quarter of the House that injustice is to be done either to the proposals of the Royal Commission or to those of the Government.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The hon. Member who has just sat down devoted practically the whole of his speech to a justification of the Government in raiding the surpluses of approved societies. That is the effect of his speech, and I regret it very much, especially in view of his persistence in calling to order those who touched on the question earlier in the Debate. He is too old a Parliamentarian to expect me to pursue that subject further. This is a very important report; and if it had been issued when no great crisis was facing the nation, it would have received considerably more
attention than it does. I regard it as a very informative document, and one which, I think, will be helpful to an understanding of this great scheme of National Health Insurance. Naturally, the most important part of any report of this kind is that dealing with the recommendations of the majority, or the minority, or the compromising elements Or the Commission. But before I proceed to deal with the Report, I desire to make one observation on the statement made by the hon. Gentleman. He criticised the minority of the Commission, whom he called "the four members of the Labour party." I am glad he knows they are members of the Labour party. They may be, but I am not certain about all of them. I will read extracts from the official evidence of the Trade Union Approved Societies Association, who are, after all, the most competent people to speak on behalf of the approved societies connected with trade unions. This is what they say:
The principle of administering a national public service through private organisations by the Act of 1911 was a new feature in British legislation, and was adopted in part, perhaps, because of political influence, and in part, probably, in order that the experience of many engaged in similar work might he utilised.
This is what they say on the particular point the hon. Gentleman raises:
The association is of opinion that it we-old not be practicable to substitute a new system for that of the approved society system at this time. It does, however, submit that a much closer approximation to the intentions of Parliament in respect of the, constitution of societies is practicable.
I doubt whether the promoter of National Health Insurance, the right bon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), ever anticipated that millions of people would be included in the scheme to be dealt with by societies without any control whatsoever over the management and administration of their affairs. The only two types who have any real control over the management of their societies, are the trade unions and friendly societies. The hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head.

Sir K. WOOD: The Minority Report expressly said neither of these had any effect.

Mr. DAVIES: The trade union approved societies are controlled by the
members; and the hon. Gentleman knows full well that in the rules issued by his Department in respect of what are called societies run by the large insurance companies, there is no chance whatsoever of any influence being brought to bear by the members upon the administration or the management of the societies.

Sir K. WOOD: I venture to quote from this paragraph of the Report of the Royal Commission, page 306:
The constitution and government of the friendly societies and trade unions, and of certain of the smaller centralised or localised societies provide the opportunity for members to exercise their will; but the volume of evidence shows that insured persons as such have not exercised, and are not exercising, any real control. In those societies where the development of the fraternal spirit was expected "—
I expect that must be an allusion to trade union societies.

Mr. DAVIES: And friendly societies.

Sir K. WOOD: In those societies where the development of the 'fraternal spirit' was expected, it is admitted that the insured members take no real interest in the work.'

Mr. DAVIES: I wish the hon. Gentle man would read on, because this is what follows:
 In the case of the large industrial companies it is not pretended that membership control is possible…it is simply that the machinery is not there.
But the democratic machinery of friendly and trade union approved societies is there.

Sir K. WOOD: But not used.

HON. MEMBERS: And used!

Mr. DAVIES: As it happens, I ought to know more about that subject than the hon. Gentleman.

Sir K. WOOD: I am going by what the Labour Report says.

Mr. DAVIES: As I said, this is a very important document, and I trust the House will allow me to say one word further on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. He declared that the Minority of the Commission wanted to smash this scheme. Nothing of the kind. If I understand the Minority Report rightly, it is this. They would transfer all the engagements of approved societies, nationalise all the assets and
liabilities and hand them to a. national organisation with local autonomy of some kind, to manage and administer. There is indeed a very strong point in favour of that idea, and it is this. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the separate approved society system is very much more costly than the system they are proposing. For illustration, there is a society of about 35,000 members with its headquarters in Manchester, with about 670 branches all over England, Scotland and Wales. You can imagine that in the case of a society established with its headquarters in Manchester, covering the whole of the insured population of Manchester only, the cost for postage and printing, for instance, would be very much less than in the case of a society with its head quarters in that city and a small member ship covering the whole of Great Britain. It is quite a feasible proposition; and I feel convinced that the Minority Report in that connection will be discussed in the House of Commons in due course as of practical application. But not by this Government. They would plunder the funds of the approved societies by sheer robbery—because that is what their economy proposals mean—and I am glad the hon. Gentleman has to-day been more candid than the Minister of Health was last week. If there is anything at all we want from them in connection with this Report and in connection with what the Government intend to do, it is frankness above all. For example, the right hon. Gentleman stated the other day that his proposal
does not touch any of the normal statutory benefits which are given to insured persons.
He was referring to the Bill, to which I will not refer. He went on to say:
It does not reduce the value of the benefits received by insured persons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1925; col. 511. Vol. 193.]
Those two statements are quite accurate, but they are only half the truth.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I stated the truth in two halves. I began by saying what we do not propose to do, and after wards went on to say what we do propose to do.

Mr. DAVIES: And what the Government are going to do is to take away
prospective benefits from insured persons. As regards the question of breach of faith in this connection I look at it in this way. Supposing the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front bench opposite went to an insurance company and said, "We want to insure our lives,"—I do not know whether it would he wise for them just now to insure their political lives—but supposing they say: "We want to insure our lives in the ordinary way." They would be asked to enter into a contract with the insurance company upon the basis of certain financial undertakings relating to their age, health, and so forth. If that insurance company later on said to them: "We are sorry, but we are not going to pay you the money originally determined upon; we are going to make a reduction in your benefit." I am quite sure the right hon. Gentlemen would at once take the insurance company into a court of law, and claim that there had been a breach of faith. We on this side of the House want to make it clear that the Government, in taking away a proportion of the State grant in this connection, 'lave violated promises made when the scheme was put into operation in 1912.
There are in this Report three sets of recommendations. There is the Majority Report, the Minority Report, and the Compromise Report between the two. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health if he will give an answer to this question: En the King's Speech, produced when this Session of Parliament was opened, there was a definite promise made that a Bill on National Health Insurance would be submitted to Parliament. It was always anticipated that when the Royal Commission reported—and the matter had been discussed—the Government in power would adopt its recommendations and bring in a Bill to enact those proposals. That, I understand, is the usual practice. But this Government has taken note of two points only in these recommendations—out of the Majority Report. They have violated one; they have accepted the other. They are taking two points out of the Report which fit in with Tory financial policy. I would ask the Government: Is it intended to bring in a wider Measure later, and at what date, to deal with the other recommendations of the Royal Commission?

Sir K, WOOD: We cannot tell.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman says he cannot tell. We shall probably get to know later. I want to join with hon. Members in all quarters of the House in paying a tribute to the scheme itself and to the successful manner in which it has been operated. As I said a few moments ago there are three types of societies concerned in its administration. I think it can be said without any fear of contradiction that, so far as benefit payments go and the keeping of accounts by approved societies, the absence of any suggestion of mal administration show that these societies curing the 24 years' existence of the s theme have done their work remarkably well. I think, too, that the Department of the Ministry of Health which is charged with this scheme has also done its work quite well.
There are, however, one or two criticisms I desire to make. I was surprised that the Commission did not report in favour of bringing into the State Health Insurance scheme all young persons as they enter industry. It has puzzled me many times as to why that has not been determined upon long ago. As soon as a young person enters remunerative employment, he should at the same time enter State Health Insurance. I am very anxious indeed to see the case of young persons covered by medical attention from school right through industry to the end of their days. In school hours they are attended by medical officers; but when they leave school all that happens until they reach 16, is that they are looked at in a haphazard manner by the certifying surgeon if they desire to enter into industrial employment in a factory. There is therefore a serious gap between 14 and 16 years of age. I should have thought that, at any rate, the Commission would have reported unanimously in favour of all to whom I have referred entering the State insurance scheme at the same time as they begin to work. The Minority Report suggests that. I trust that when the Government comes to decide that issue right hon. Gentlemen will bear in mind that it is very important indeed that these young persons should be included for health insurance purposes as soon as they leave school.
I would once again refer, if I might, to the criticism made by the hon. Gentle-
man on the Minority Report which declares that the State insurance scheme is not a national scheme at all. It cannot be so long as it is administered through several hundreds of approved societies. They point out, for instance, that you may have, say, a family of five, and in that family of five four are insured persons. Those four are insured, it may be, in four different societies. If they fall ill they find that their sickness, additional and other benefits vary considerably. That state of affairs cannot be satisfactory. The Minority Report, therefore, in my opinion, quite rightly condemns that system. So long as the approved society system continues, however, that condition will be aggravated and as each valuation period expires it will become more aggravated still, to the extent that you will have greater differences between these payments among members of the same family as the years go by. That is exactly what is likely to happen. In some cases the sickness benefit may be £1 per week and in others the approved society can pay only the statutory 15s. The Report in proposing to make alterations by establishing a centralised fund to prevent that kind of thing in future is in the right direction.
We ought not, I think, to pass away from this Report without mentioning the point referred to by the Parliamentary Secretary in justification of the action of the Government in connection with the new proposals. I want to point out the deadly differences between the Commission's Report and what the Government propose to do. This is what they say:
No change should he made with regard to the insurance of men serving in the Forces of the Crown.
This is what the Government declare:
 There shall be transferred to the Exchequer from the Navy, Army and Air Forces Insurance Funds the sum of £1,100,000.
I dare venture to suggest that the men who are serving in His Majesty's forces will not thank the Government for what they are about to do in this connection. I am given to understand that men serving with the forces of the Crown, are being discharged suffering from consumption, and that the Government Department concerned declares that the disease from which they are suffering is not attri-
butable to their service with the forces. They therefore come on to the funds of approved societies, and all they are entitled to is the maximum sickness benefit of £1 per week for six months, and at the most 10s. a week, so long as they are ill, by way of disablement benefit. I should have imagined that the Govern ment, fortified by their huge majority, which talks so much about Empire, and so forth, and about the glory of the men serving the Crown—that they, above all, would have found the means whereby to utilise that £1,100,000 in extending the benefits of these men who are suffering in the way I have described. There is the other point. This is what the Majority Report declares:
 We consider also that the scheme should be self-supporting, subject to the payment by the Exchequer of its present proportionate share of the post of the benefits and administration.
That is a very definite proposal to the Government. This, however, is what the Government say:
 As from 1st January, 1926, the Treasury contribution towards benefits and administration shall be reduced from seven-ninths to six-sevenths in the case of men, and four-fifths in the case of women.
Consider what has been said in this House with regard to the proposals of the Government in taking away this money? I am not given to using hard language. My nature, I think, is such that I cannot be vindictive, but I would say this, that the approved societies, at any rate, have given an indication by protest and other wise that they regard the proposals of the Government in this connection as barefaced robbery—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This is not a question of the Economy Bill.

Mr. DAVIES: I am sorry. I agree it is not the Economy Bill. I just want to add this: The Parliamentary Secretary referred, among other things, to medical benefit. The hon. Gentleman made the astonishing statement that the Government had some time ago had to dip into its pockets to find a huge sum of money to meet demands for medical benefits. I always understood that at the end of 1923 when the Government was in difficulty with the panel doctors, they did not dip their hands into the Treasury at all. They went to a central
fund, created out of the unclaimed stamp account and other moneys in hand, which really belonged to the approved societies, but kept by the Treasury. It is not fair, it is not correct, for the hon. Gentleman to say that when the difficulties in 1924 and 1925 arose the Government itself shared part of the liability. There is one further point I want to make in this connection, and it is this: The approved societies are not entirely satisfied with the methods employed by the Ministry in dealing with the panel doctors. They think, and in my view, think rightly, that if they are going to be called upon to pay for the whole of the medical attention, they should have a say in all future negotiations between the Ministry and the doctors.
The insured population of this country will not be satisfied unless all the money that has hitherto been contributed, and all the money promised under the Act of 1911, is devoted to meeting claims for every one of the additional benefits included in the Schedule. After all, what is there wrong in a workman, when he is sick, desiring to be properly nursed, the payment for which being from money contributed by him self? What is there wrong in the ordinary workman requiring proper convalescent treatment? He does no: often get either now. What is there wrong in the average workman, when he falls sick, requiring more than £1 per week sickness benefit? I should like hon. and right hon. Gentle men opposite to say how they would like to live on £1 a week total income when they are sick! I venture to suggest that the Members of the Front Bench opposite discover that their household expenses actually increase because of sickness and the cost of medical attention. It is strange that a workman, when he falls sick, finds it presumed that he can live on a less income than he can when he is well. A strange doctrine that. That is the doctrine of the Tory party. That is the doctrine of the present Government. That is the doctrine of the Tory party to-day! I think the Liberal party are not quite so mean on this point. They have gained wisdom since 1911. I trust that, when the Government come to consider this report they will include in any proposals they may have to bring before Parliament such pro vision that all these moneys to which I
have referred shall be handed to the approved societies, to whom they rightly belong.
6.0 P.M.
I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite not to talk so glibly about millions! As I said the other night, we are told that the surpluses of the approved societies amount now to £65,000,000, but it is known that the 'Actuary has declared the it only about half that sum is avail able for distribution amongst the insured population. Supposing the sum were £30,000,000. What are £30,000,000 among 15,000,000 people? It will not provide them with 7s, 6d., or thereabouts, per head per annum for the valuation period. Consequently, I say that, whereas we are very satisfied with the information contained in this report, we are not entirely in accord with all the recommendations. We shall always stand in favour of all the contributions paid by the State, by the employers and by the insured people coming back to the pockets of those people in respect of whom such contributions have been paid.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We are circum scribed in our discussion this afternoon, of course, by the Rule, which is known to everyone who has been in this House for any time, that on the Consolidated Fund Bill, or in Committee of Supply, it is not possible to discuss any thing involving legislation. I have always regretted that Rule. I think there are many circumstances in which it is almost impossible—I am not now referring to great controversial issues which divide parties, but to practical questions about which there is no real controversy—to discuss a subject in Committee of Supply with out, to a certain extent, traversing that Rule. Usually, the Chairman of Committee permits a, discussion if there be general consent among Members, but he is always at the mercy of anyone who rises to a point of Order. I can well understand an objection being raised this afternoon to any discussion which would anticipate the very controversial discussion which will take place on the Economy Bill. It would undoubtedly be unfair to force a discussion on that subject under the disguise of an administrative discussion; but, apart from that are scores of questions arising out of the National Health Insurance Act on which
we might have a most useful discussion. I would ask the Government to consider the point that we have never had a re view in this House—at least, I do not recall one—of the working of that Act. The Act has been in operation since 1911. I agree that it has called for amendment, and I have no doubt, and I hope, there will be many more amendments. It was a great experiment. It dealt with the lives and habits of 15,000,000 people, and there have been changing conditions. When the Act was passed, it was quite a new idea in this country for the State to come in in this way. That was the era in which old age pensions began; and then we came to this insurance scheme. Before that the national revenues had never been hypothecated for social ser vices of this kind.
Since those days there has been a great change of opinion. National insurance has ceased to be a controversial subject. Last year a very large extension of the system was carried by the present Government, and they may make many more extensions if the revenues of the country will afford them. But now that we have had an investigation by an impartial Com mission into the working of the Act, I should think it would be very desirable, if it were possible, for the Government to give even an afternoon only for the discussion of practical issues. Controversial issues can he dealt with on Tues day and Wednesday next. Many matters wore referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). There are many subjects of that kind on which it would be very desirable for the House of Commons to have a full discussion. He suggested incidentally that the Liberal party is the only party that learned wisdom. I am glad he is beginning to recognise it.
I cannot refer, controversially at any rate, to the Economy Bill, but I may be allowed to allude to the fact that it is on the Order Paper, and what I would like to ask would be this: Assuming that that were an Act of Parliament, what additional benefits suggested by the Act of 1911 will be possible if the £2,225,000 be taken away? I should rather like to know that, and I have no doubt the Department is in a position to tell us. I should also like, if it were possible, to discuss, on the assumption that that sum had already been taken out, the character
of the other medical benefits—dental benefits, maternity benefits—[HON. MEMBERS: "And specialists!"] Yes, and specialists—the question of whether a man should be taken to a specialist or the specialist should be brought to him. There are many questions of that kind on which I should like to have a discussion in this House under conditions in which we would be rather contributing ideas to see whether we could not amend, strengthen and improve the Act. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health is not in a position to answer my question—naturally the Prime Minister alone is in that position—but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will convey the suggestion to the Prime Minister and see whether it is not possible to follow it out—to see whether, if only a Supply Day could be found for the purpose, it would not be possible by general consent to permit something beyond an ordinary discussion on administration.
Questions about insurance are not altogether administrative questions. Everybody agrees that on the whole, and within the powers which it has got at the present time, the Ministry of Health has administered the Act very efficiently, and that everybody is doing his best; but, apart from controversial matters, there is a real need for changes. If the Prime Minister could not sec his way to give an afternoon for the discussion, I think it would be desirable to consider whether it would not be possible to allow us, by the common consent of all parties, to have a discussion which would travel a little beyond the strict Rule. That has been done; I have seen it done many times when all parties were agreeable.
I believe an undertaking has been given that at 6.15 we should proceed to another subject, and I shall certainly do nothing to interfere with that understanding, and therefore I shall keep clear of controversial topics, especially as I have an opportunity to refer to them on Tuesday next; but I give fair warning to the right. hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health that I will come back again to his feathers and his pillows. I shall want to know why he made that false statement in the House, and why he misled the House of Commons, and I shall say then that he got his cheers under false pretences,
which is a very wrong thing to do. As far as invective is concerned, my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton and I belong to a race which never indulges in invective under any circumstances; but, on the whole, he did not do badly, until he was called to order.
I should only like to say, in conclusion, that the authors of the Insurance Act have every right to be gratified with this Report. Among other things to which it calls attention, is the fact that, in spite of all the criticisms that were directed against it, no evidence was brought before the Commission to justify any of them. On the contrary, all the criticisms have been abandoned from every point of view. That is very satisfactory. The other statement they made is that the Act has been fully justified by the advantages in health and social security derived from it. Generally, they come to the conclusion that it has had a very good effect upon the health of the working population of this country. I hope that will encourage the Minister of Health in the good work, and that between now and Tuesday next he may change his mind with regard to certain nefarious projects which he entertains against this fund. I would like to say one word in reply to what fell from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health when he referred to pledges. He said the pledges which I gave at that time were pledges which had reference only to good management.

Sir K. WOOD: And efficiency.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Good management and efficiency. But, surely, when you profit in any concern you take into account the luck which comes your way. If the rate of interest has increased, if there are certain circumstances which have spared the Fund, why should not the Fund have the advantages arising from them, just as they would have the benefit of advantages arising from good management and efficiency? It is all very well to say that the position ha-s not arisen because of good management and efficiency. To say that is, I think, taking an unfair advantage. The real complaint is that now, when there is a valuation which enables you to confer the additional benefits which were contemplated under the Act, you a-re taking them away—just at the very moment when they are practicable,

Sir K. WOOD: indicated dissent.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Well, I fully realise that I cannot pursue that point. I was only saying that one word in reply to what fell from the Parliamentary Secretary, which I could not allow to pass without challenge. I cannot dwell upon it, because I respect the ruling of the Chair, but I think the Minister of Health might, somehow or other, secure the opportunity for us to review the whole question of National Insurance, seeing that it affects 15,000,000 people in this country and that the conditions are Very trying to them and their dependants.

Mc. MELLER: I am afraid, from observations which have been made already, that I shall be very much circumscribed in dealing with this question this afternoon, and I have also received an intimation that even if I were not so circumscribed, I should be limited by the time at my disposal. I do not propose to roam into matters which are to be discussed on some future occasion, but will confine myself to some of the points which emerge from the Report of the Royal Commission on National Insurance. I want to call attention to one or two remarks regarding the allegation fiat proposals may be put forward which will tend to rob insured persons of certain rights which they might naturally look forward to in consequence of the obligations entered into by past Governments in regard to the insurance scheme. I do not suggest that there is a breach of faith, and I am not going to say that you are robbing the funds.
I am, however, going to say that, as I understand the Insurance Act, there was an intention on the part of the Government when the scheme was first introduced that the societies should be solvent and that the contribution should never fall below the amount which was necessary to keep them solvent. The actuaries carefully estimated what was necessary and fixed the Government's proportion, at two-ninths although subsequently it was altered. I am not suggesting that the finances of the scheme cannot be altered by subsequent legislation because Parliament is entitled to make such alterations as it thinks are necessary. What I do say is that there is a moral obligation on the part of the Government when such an undertaking
entered into to see that it is carried out and that the insured people who look forward to the maintenance of the benefit shall not be deprived of any portion of the benefits which they were led to expect as a result of economical administration by their society. And I think the good luck which has been referred by the right hon. Gentleman opposite ought to fall to their advantage.
The financial basis of the Act has been very carefully examined by the Royal Commission, and they asked for a Committee of actuaries to inquire into the finances of the Scheme and see what margin there was to be found. That Committee consisted of very eminent actuaries, and they made their report. In that report they had to bear in mind certain suggestions made by the Royal Commission, and one of them was in regard to the obligation undertaken by the Government with reference to the excess expenditure upon medical benefit. Having ascertained what margin there was and what interest could be allowed, and having suggested that the interest on the fund could be increased from 3 per cent. to 4 per cent., the actuaries make this report which is well worth the attention of the House, and I feel sure that the Minister of Health will take it into consideration when he brings forward his proposals to put into operation the recommendations of the Royal Commission. They say:
We are, however, constrained to point out that the imposition of the new burden would result in increased deficiencies where deficiencies now exist, or in the creation of deficiency in certain cases where, on the present basis, surplus would have appeared.
They further say:
This is a grave prospect, and although the machinery of the Central Fund is sufficient, we believe, to meet the situation, we do not think we are going beyond our duty in inviting the Royal Commission to consider the effect upon the credit of the whole system of the adoption of changes such as might produce deficiency to the extent here indicated on the valuations of the societies, even though the means of subsequent adjustment existed and were ample for the purpose.
That is a grave statement made by the actuaries. They have considered every part of the financial basis of the scheme, and the proposals likely to be made by the Royal Commission, and they are hound to say, after having done this, that the Government must be very careful in
placing further burdens upon any particular scheme. What is the real proposal of the Royal Commission? The most important part of their Report is that which deals with the extension of benefit. Their first recommendation, which is given a position of priority, is that when funds are available to meet the costs they should be applied in the following order, and the first is the extension of suitable medical benefit. I suggest that that is a recommendation which ought to receive the earnest consideration of this House, and every means should be found to extend that benefit.
Why do I make that suggestion? I do so because the extension of medical benefit will, I believe, improve the health of the people, and naturally assist very considerably the funds of the society, and the benefits which are paid. These funds are supplemented by an arrangement under which a payment is made by the State in respect of benefits and cost of administration, and therefore if you get a relief in respect of sickness the Government will get a relief to the extent of the amount they have to pay. On another occasion I may make a suggestion to show how that economy may be pursued in respect to making provision for medical treatment. I would like to know what arrangement the Minister of Health is going to make to carry that recommendation into effect. There is a very significant Clause contained in this Report which I would beg the Minister to bear in mind. On page 83, paragraph 177 of the Majority Report, dealing with the question of surpluses in the future, the Commissioners say:
But it is evident that if the upward tendency in certain of the claims for money benefit cannot be brought under control, there is little prospect of more money being released for new purposes at a later date.
Consequently the putting into operation of these recommendations was somewhat pushed into the background. What is the result of the proposals put forward by the Royal Commission and the position which has been found by the actuaries. If hon. Members read the recommendations which are put forward with regard to the shouldering by the societies of the increased cost of medical benefit, and other provisions with regard to the reduction of reserved value, they
will find that the Commissioners come to the conclusion that there will be a possible surplus of some £2,000,000 per annum in the next quinquennial period, and instead of £30,000,000 there will only be a sum of £10,000,000 available, to which may be added a carry forward of £15,000,000. I understand it is contemplated to throw a further burden upon the Fund to the extent of some £15,000,000, so that you will only have a surplus under the best conditions of £10,000,000.
The recommendations of the Report are very serious and they show clearly that you cannot tamper with the financial basis of the scheme. You cannot reduce the contributions of the insured person or the State without placing the whole scheme in jeopardy, and I hope the Minister will consider very carefully, apart from the financial stringency in which the country finds itself to-day, that it would be a grave scandal if this great national scheme upon which 15,000,000 persons are dependent should be brought to a state bordering on insolvency, be cause we have not observed the recommendations made by the Royal Commission which was specially set up to examine this and other questions. There will be an opportunity later on of going into the question which I should have preferred to develop now, but I desire to keep in order. I believe the party to which I belong always does keep in order, and as I am anxious to follow the great traditions of my party I will conclude my remarks.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think all those who have been present during the whole of this Debate will agree that it has been of an extraordinary character. The Economy Bill has stood like a pot of honey in the midst of the discussions, and speaker after speaker has only been pre vented from plunging headfirst into the honey by the ruling which has been given. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) that I shall be ready to take up the pillow fight again on Tuesday next, and I may inform him that I still have some pillows in reserve which I have not yet used. The right hon. Gentleman has made an appeal to me to try and provide, after consultation with the Leader of the House, some further opportunity of discussing in a more or less non-
controversial fashion the various aspects of the whole scheme of National Health Insurance. Of course, I cannot commit myself without having had an opportunity of consulting my right hon. Friend, but I cannot help thinking that he will be ready to agree with me that a discussion sue h as that would be interesting and valuable, and therefore I shall certainly ash him to give favourable consideration to the suggestion which has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
The Report which has been made by the Royal Commission, I think, reflects very great credit, not only upon their industry—it is a report which has evidently taken much time and trouble to prepare—but also upon their ability, because they have stated their case very clearly and given reasons for their recommendations. I think their report will lot m a fitting subject for such a discussion as the right hon. Gentleman opposite has suggested, and undoubtedly much talk and debate may be usefully given to considering in what way the present scheme is deficient and in what way it can be improved. The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Meller) has picked out a paragraph in the Report, part of which he read, in which the upward tendency of certain claims for money benefit was drawn attention to. I would to call the attention of the House to a passage near the end of the same paragraph in the Report which says:
But we realise that such an improvement may not be fully secured without a general and definite endeavour to keep the claims within their proper limits, regard being had, of course, to the just and equitable treatment of the insured persons.
It is obvious that what the Commission had in mind was that further and more careful attention should be paid by these societies to such claims, and to make certain that, whilst all equitable demands were met, the position was not to be injured by carelessness or insufficient attention. The right hon. Gentleman opposite alluded to extended medical benefit. One of the principal defects of the scheme, and one recognised at the very beginning, was that the medical benefit provided was not sufficient. Of course, however, very wisely and properly, it was not thought advisable to try to do everything at once. It was an experiment of a very novel, bold and far-reaching character,
and it was thought advisable to see how it would work before any final scheme was constructed. I think we can say now that the medical benefit provided is not sufficient, and there is no change in regard to benefit that would be more warmly welcomed by the societies generally than one which would extend the scope of the present medical benefit, and give insured persons the advantages of expert and specialised advice and treatment. I have explained elsewhere my own view that the benefits to be derived from an extended, hall marked medical service will not be con fined to the actual advice and treatment given to insured persons. I believe that general practitioners themselves, through being brought constantly into touch with these men who have made a. special study of particular diseases or particular forms of weakness, will find that their interest is aroused and stimulated, and their know ledge widened and extended, and that, therefore, even the services that we have now will be improved and strengthened by additions of that kind. Those hon. Members who have read the Report will be aware that this extended service, at any rate, is not affected by any proposals which up to the present have been made in other connections. The financial recommendations of the Commission can be effected by means of a partial pooling of services. That is not altogether a popular proposal among the societies, but, after all,—

Mr. WARNE: It depends on whether they have a surplus.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No doubt the fact of their having a surplus or not does tend to throw light upon their criticism, but that is an aspect of the matter which might, perhaps, form the subject of discussion in this House. At any rate, I only wish to say that, personally, I should be very glad to confer on a proposal of that kind, and I think the House would find a great many interesting points on which light could be thrown by discussion among us at some future and more convenient time.

Orders of the Day — CASH ON DELIVERY SERVICE.

Sir WILLIAM PERRING: I rise to call the attention of the House to a question which has aroused very great interest and some surprise all over the country
during the past week. I refer to the decision of the Government to introduce a system of cash on delivery in connection with the inland parcels post, and the surprise which has been expressed in regard not only to the introduction, but to the manner of the introduction, of this proposal. Surprise was felt that a question concerning the traders of this country should have been brought forward in this brief and unexpected way, without taking counsel with the traders and farmers, who are very largely concerned and interested in the matter. All who have studied the question of cash on delivery over the last 20 years know that successive Post masters-General, after carefully considering this question and reviewing it in all its aspects, have decided, and I believe very rightly decided, not to intro duce the system, because, in their considered opinion, it was an unnecessary and undesirable proposal.
The right hon. Gentleman who was Postmaster-General in 1923, and who is now Secretary of State for War, gave very great consideration to this question, and he has put on record his considered opinion in regard to it. In order that this question may be fairly understood in all its aspects, I would like to quote some of the contents of a communication which was addressed to the retail traders' organisation known as the National Chamber of Trade. Writing to that organisation in July, 1923, the right hon. Gentleman's secretary said:
 I am directed by the Postmaster-General to give you, for the information of the National Chamber of Trade, the following statement of the reasons which have prompted his decision not to introduce a system of cash-on-delivery in the inland postal service of this country. One effect of the establishment of a cash-on-delivery service would he to further the development of mail order businesses at the expense of small retail-shops. The Postmaster-General cannot disregard the strong representations which have been made all over the country on behalf of the smaller shopkeepers against this proposal; and, before deciding to proceed with the scheme in the face of those representations, he would require evidence of a substantial demand on the part of the public for the facilities which cash-on delivery affords. It has not been shown to his satisfaction that such a demand exists.
After dealing further with the. subject, and saying that he believed a minimum charge of 6d. or 7d. per parcel over and
above the postage rates would be required, he went to to say:
That consideration apart, however, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Post Office to carry on a cash on-delivery system from which every class of parcels, except those containing home grown agricultural produce, was excluded, as the term c home-grown produce is not susceptible of very precise definition, and any limitation would be difficult to enforce and maintain. Moreover, in any case it would be impossible to detect or prevent the use of the service for foreign produce.
That was the opinion of the Postmaster-General in 1923. At a later date, in the summer of last year, having regard to the rumours that cash on delivery was about to be introduced, I had the privilege of taking to the Postmaster-General a very representative deputation from the retail distributors of the country. In reply to our representations, the Post master-General said:
I have received from the National Farmers' Union strong representations in favour of cash on delivery, but I must approach this question from all points of view.
My complaint here to-day is that the Postmaster-General has not approached this question from all points of view. He has ignored the trader, and, with a mistaken idea that he can render some service to the small farmer and the small holder, he has advised the Government to introduce this system of cash on delivery in the belief that he will benefit them.
I desire to point cut to the House that, in considering a question of this kind, the duty of the Government, and particularly of the Postmaster-General, is to weigh up the advantages which may accrue to one section of the community against the disadvantages to another section of the community, and to decide this question on the balance of advantage—in other words, to study the public interest as a whole, and any sectional interest. That is the spirit in which I approach this question to-day. I am here to submit, on behalf of the retail distributors of the country, that in their opinion it cannot benefit the smallholder, while it will create great disadvantages for the average small trader all over the country. I make that statement for this reason. Under the cash-on-delivery system, with its increased charges for delivery, it is almost impossible for the small farmer and smallholder to despatch
and transmit through the parcel post much of their produce. No one will suggest, for instance, that they can transmit cabbages and other vegetables the weight of which is out of all proportion to their value. Therefore, they are limited to certain articles, more or less articles of dairy produce, which they can transmit through the parcel post.
The underlying suggestion which prompted the Postmaster-General to mill reduce this proposal is the suggestion that the producer of farm produce can divide his attention between producing and distributing. I desire to submit. that it is an impracticable and unwise pro position to divert the attention of the smallholder or small farmer from his proper calling of production, and to persuade him to embark upon something which he does not understand, and for which, by his very training, he is, generally speaking, unfitted. The distribution of the various products and commodities which represent the food of the people is a very scientific operation, with wide ramifications, and anyone who suggests that the great machine or organisation which is identified with distribution all over the country is a mere unimportant thing, certainly has not studied or does not understand it. The distribution of thousands of tons of produce every day has to be carried out in a very scientific and to suggest that it would be to advantage to divert the mind of the producer to a method of distribution, with the idea that he can better serve the community than those who have spent their in the business of distribution, is, to mind, hoodwinking the smallholder. If any benefit is to be derived from Government advice or assistance in connection with the work of the smallholder or small fanner, I think he should be tired to concentrate his attention more and more on production, and to endeavour, by more intensive and scientific cultivation, to work out his salvation, instead of persuading him that by dividing his attention between production and distribution he can do better for himself and for the community.
I want to point cut to the Assistant Postmaster-General that the system which he proposes to introduce in a few weeks' time has been time and again described by the trader as undesirable from his point of view; but, over and above that.
there has been no public demand for it, and I hope that, when the Assistant Postmaster-General rises to justify the proposals which he has persuaded the Government to adopt, he will tell the House and the country what new factor has arisen since 1923 to justify this entire change of opinion, and what has happened to persuade the Postmaster-General that he can conduct this cash-on delivery inland parcels post at a much lower charge than was thought necessary in 1923, as expressed in the letter which I have read. That letter refers' to a minimum charge of 6d. or 7d. To-day we have a minimum charge of 4d. If this new proposition is to be worked with out a heavy loss to the postal service, we are entitled to know how this has been brought about and how the right hon. Gentleman intends to work it. I put a question to him on Tuesday as to what increase in the Department he would require to work this new system, and the reply was that he does not intend to employ any more clerks or employés If he is really and seriously suggesting that he can benefit the smallholders of the country—and there are something like 500,000 of them—and consumers generally without giving employment to any more people. in the Postal Service it demonstrates, to my mind, that he has not, very much faith in his own proposal
I should like to ask the Assistant Post master-General another question. Has he consulted the Union of Post Office Workers? Has he considered whether the men engaged in the distribution of parcels are going to carry much larger weights and are going to be made responsible for the collection and accounting of large sums of money day by day and week by week? Has he considered whether the risk involved, and the responsibility the postman is called upon to assume, will not deserve even higher pay? I have always been of the opinion in my business career that where-ever you make employés responsible for money, or put more responsible duties on them, they generally demand higher remuneration than people with less responsibility.
What I am saying may be assumed to have a certain bias, because I am in the retail trade, but a letter appeared in the "Times" yesterday, over the signature of a gentleman who has spent many years in the parcel-post service in India.
He gives expression to views which the traders entirely endorse, and goes on to say the cash-on-delivery system in India has involved them in a loss, and the large, the business the greater the loss. Apart from the loss, he volunteers the view that it is the most difficult branch of the service and gives them the maximum amount of trouble. He further says that 15 per cent, of the goods conveyed are returned unaccepted. Has the Post master considered the number of returns in America and other places, and has he considered what will be involved in loss in transit and damage in various ways, because, if he is going to set up this system with £1,000,000 capital outlay and no additional staff, he certainly does not contemplate a very large volume of business.
Not only the small trader, but the large trader objects to this proposal. The large departmental stores, which have for years carried on a large mail order business, much prefer to conduct their business on the existing method of mail order. They realise that the public in the past have been quite content to send cash before delivery. Immediately you introduce cash-on-delivery it involves a very much larger volume of book-keeping, and it must necessarily involve a very large increase in book-keeping and clerical work on the part of the Postmaster. If the sight hon. Gentleman really suggests that he can carry on the system of cash delivery of any volume that justifies its introduction or that is going to benefit the smallholder or the public, he should tell us how he is going to do it without any increase of staff. Furthermore, we are told on all hands that we are living in an age of mass production, and we are to think in large terms, and yet in the twentieth century he proposes, so to speak, to put the clock back and suggest to the smallholder that he should fill up his time by writing in forms and licking stamps and doing a number of things which divert his attention from his ordinary duties.
Whatever might have been argued in the past in favour of the introduction of a cash-on-delivery system the arguments in its favour are to-day very much reduced. Ten years ago, communication between town and town, and between towns and villages, was very much less
than it is to-day. Owing to the extensive development of omnibuses and trams, particularly omnibuses, facilities for the people in scattered outlying districts have increased immeasurably, and the opportunity for shopping at. the shops and not through the post has been greatly improved. That being so, the argument that it would benefit the buying public is extremely weak when we consider that this island is entirely different from any other country where the parcel post has been introduced. The density of population is four times what it is in France and twice that of Germany. When be says it has been a great success in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact: Slat there are only about two people to the square mile in those countries. They are so scattered that they cannot go to the shops, and it is an absolute necessity that they should do their purchasing by mail order. There is not a country in the world where the retail distributing trade is so highly organised and the methods of trading are 80 efficient and so deserving of Government support. What they are proposing to do is to injure one group of distributors by trying to create another set of distributors, or, in other wards, to ignore the man who has spent his life in the business and to encourage a new class of distributors which would divert him from his proper business.
We should not approve of it for this reason. Quite apart from the advantages or disadvantages which any section of the community will derive from this system, we have to ask ourselves, is the Postmaster justified at the present juncture of our affairs in embarking on some sort of experiment, because he admits that it is only an experiment by the fact that he is riot going to employ any more staff. In the light of all the information we have before us it is not justified. Whatever information the Postmaster may have which has induced him to entertain this proposal, so far as I am aware there has been no authoritative inquiry which justifies him in assuming that the system anywhere has been of great benefit to agriculturists. In the very scattered districts where it may be an advantage for the buyer to shop through the post, there is plenty of farm produce, so farm produce will not be sent into the scattered areas. Speaking
in the North Riding a few days ago the Postmaster-General ventured the opinion that it would benefit the shop people. The shop-keepers and the trading community know their business very much better than the right hon. Gentleman, and they know what suits them and what is in their interest, and the Postmaster General is not entitled to advance his opinion against the overwhelming opinion, after long consideration of this question, of the great distributing trades.
I am not putting forward the opinion of a few shopkeepers in a small way of business who are unimportant from the Postmaster's point of view. I am giving the considered opinion of the largest traders in the country who, while carrying on a large mail order business, do not it quire, and do not see the need of this extension in favour of cash delivery. They much prefer to have the cash before hand. The right hon. Gentleman said the small traders would get their money much quicker. They cannot get it very much quicker than having it before delivery, and I hope he will justify that gratuitous advice to the small trader. When he realises, as he will soon, if he has not already done so, that neither the traders nor the public desire, nor have demanded this proposal, I hope he will confine its operation to agricultural produce. If he is so much enamoured of his scheme, let him confine it to those he desires to serve. If he will confine it to agricultural produce, let him also keep separate accounts, so that the House a id the country will be able to find out whether there is loss or profit, because as far as I have been able to learn since I have been in the House, and in the light of the information I gathered when on the telephone inquiry, the Post Office accounts are so mixed up that it would take a very capable accountant to dissect them and ascertain where the overlapping takes place, and how and where he could dissect the work of the various departments so as to present an accurate statement of the money involved in working this system as distinct from all the other systems.
7.0 P.M.
Of course, he cannot do it, and, that being so, the House should not sanction the introduction of a system which, once adopted, will continue whether it involves a loss or otherwise, because if I know the civil servant he will never admit a mistake
of that kind. Therefore, I think we should minimise the loss which is sure to accrue from this proposal by asking the right hon. Gentleman to limit it to those who are engaged in agriculture. If they want it, let them try it. I am convinced that it will be a failure, but 1 am concerned, if this proposal is introduced, that we ought not to give facilities to a class of trader who, in my judgment, is undesirable in the retail distributing trade. We do not desire the same class of trader who is referred to in the letter in the "Times" from which I have quoted. In India, there has grown up a class of trader who merely has a, postal address, carries no stock, and by alluring advertisements secures a fairly large volume of business which invariably is unsatisfactory. He can go on trading where there are millions of people to trade with, never desiring the same customer twice, and encouraging a class of business through the Press and through advertising which is not in the interests of the community. The provincial trader has to bear the burden of the social and municipal services of his own town. The provincial town in a large measure is a self-contained community, and I contend, on behalf of the provincial trader, that he should be protected so long as he endeavours to give good service to the community. That a very large proportion of business should be filched from him by those who advertise outside his area is not helping the provincial trader. I have no doubt the Postmaster-General will make some reference to the large volume of business carried on under this system in Germany. It has been ventilated in the Press. If it be the intention of the Postmaster-General, in introducing this system, to develop in this country a volume of business such as is suggested has been carried on in Germany, then it is his intention to do serious injury to the provincial trader. I hope he will tell us that this is not his intention. He cannot have it both ways. If the business be good and is going to increase in value, it must injure the provincial trader.
I desire to express, on behalf of the retail trader, the considered opinion that the Postmaster-General is going to do him a serious disservice. I express to the right hon. Gentleman the hope that he will reconsider his decision and con fine it, if he does not withdraw it, to
those engaged in producing who may desire to develop the sale of farm produce. If the Postmaster-General, or those who support this proposal, have any doubts as to the efficiency of the immense organisation which is identified and associated with the retail distributing trade, they have only to visit our great markets like Billingsgate, Leaden-hall Market, Smithfield, and Covent Garden, or visit the great railway termini where thousands of milk churns every night arrive in London. If he will consider these things and realise what the distribution of foodstuffs means all over the country, I feel convinced that, if he does not know it now, he will then learn, that the distributing trades of this country deserve his support and en couragement, and not the infliction upon them of any proposal which would do them serious damage. I will conclude by expressing the hope that the Postmaster-General will seriously tell the House the reasons which have justified him in reversing the decision of his colleague in 1923, and that he will tell us how he is going to work it at much less cost than his own Department considered possible in 1923. Also, I hope he will tell us how he is going to work it without additional staff.

Miss WILKINSON: I find myself to-night in the most extraordinary position of supporting the present Government on this matter. With all due diffidence, I almost feel that I am sure to be wrong because I do support them. As a matter of fact, I do strongly support the proposal that the Postmaster-General has initiated of cash on delivery. We have heard from the previous speaker the reasons why the traders of this country are, in his opinion, against the proposal. It is always easy for any ordinary body to get its views put before this House, and that is as it should be, but there is a greater number who are not organised, the consumers, whose views are seldom placed before it, especially the very large and inarticulate body of the housewives of this country who are the greatest shoppers in the country. I feel that this system of cash on delivery will be warmly welcomed by many women whose circumstances are such that shopping in the ordinary way is a very great difficulty.
The previous speaker has assumed that the whole of this cash on delivery will benefit the great London stores. I doubt that very much. I think that the provincial trader will also benefit. It is a much simpler matter for the housewife to write her orders on a postcard and to have the goods delivered at her door, than to go round to a post office, which may be inconvenient, to get postal orders for varying amounts and send them to her trader. I think both the provincial and the London traders will benefit by this system. The previous speaker suggested that it will encourage the undesirable kind of mail order business. Surely, that is going on to a very large extent now, probably as large as it ever could be. I suggest that it will rather give the good traders the advantage by making it much more simpler for the housewife to shop in this manner. Take the case of a woman with a large number of children who is living in a suburb. We are ex tending out towns rapidly. We are having large housing schemes where shops are not being built as quickly as houses. There are many places in the suburbs which have difficulties with regard to shops. A woman in a place like that must get an omnibus. Perhaps there are not even omnibuses. In my own constituency, in a garden village, they have to wait half an hour for an omnibus. It is a simple proposition to write on a postcard and get your goods next morning. That will be of immense advantage.
While I can realise that the Post master-General is going to be attacked by every kind of organised trader, I hope the co-operative trader will take the point of view of the people in this matter. I feel sure if they consult the Women's Co-operative Guild, they will find they are warm supporters of the Government in this one instance only. For these and other reasons, the Postmaster-General has hit on a very good scheme, and I hope, whatever strong opposition he has to face from the traders, he will remember the large number of housewives to whom this will be a real blessing and not allow himself to be moved out of his course, hut at least to give it a trial.

Major-General Sir A. KNOX: The hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring) who introduced this subject was, first of all, concerned that the
agricultural producer should confine all his activities to producing. Secondly, he was very much worried that the Post Office employés should have more work without extra wages; thirdly, he had a great deal of sympathy with the Postmaster-General lest he should not be able at the end of his year to balance his accounts; and, fourthly, he allowed it to be understood that he was speaking entirely for the retail traders. I quite allow that this system has been blocked consistently for many years by the retail traders. This has been entirely through misapprehension. I have had some experience of the system in India for 11 years. It was an unqualified success. Many countries in the world now have this system. I was reading a pamphlet published 10 years ago which said that only two countries in the world, one Great Britain and the other China, were denied this privilege. I believe that is an exaggeration. I believe every country in Europe—

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): China has it now.

Sir A. KNOX: Practically every country in Europe and every Dominion has now got this. It may not be generally known in this House, but our Pest Office has for many years worked a system for overseas cash-on-delivery; a system which has worked with considerable smoothness. Our Post Office has undertaken cash-on-delivery for foreign producers. Our Post Office has so far consistently refused to collect those charges for the British farmer and retailer unless he was sending his goods abroad. The hon. Member who opened this discussion referred to a letter in the "Times" yesterday from a very distinguished civil servant in India who was, I think, for many years Postmaster-General. I would like to quote also from a book by the same gentleman in which he touches on the question of cash-on delivery. It is a book called "The Post Office in India, and its Story." He writes:
The increase in the past few years is little short of marvellous, and is due to the reduction of rates and the growth of the value payable by the cash-on-delivery system so largely adopted by all retail firms.
After all, it is perfectly true to say that the conditions in India, Canada and Australia are not comparable to Great Britain, but the conditions in Germany, Denmark, and other countries are more or less alike, and I would like to quote reports from some of those countries and show how the system has affected retail traders there. First of all, as regards Germany, where I believe the system was introduced as long ago as 1874, it is stated:
No opposition experienced. Service regarded as almost indispensable. No harm done retail trade. Is equally advantageous to large and small traders.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: From whom is that report?

Sir A. KNOX: These reports are from the Post Offices in the countries concerned. I understand they are official replies. From Denmark, where the system was established in 1854, they reply:
System in force. No complaint has ever reached the Post Office.
Sweden says:
Little, if any, effect on retail business.
Hungary says:
Retail business not adversely affected.
Take the case of the small country retail trader. I have his interests at heart as much as anyone so long as he is not a profiteer. If that, man is content with a fair profit, he has no cause to fear undertaking cash on delivery. After all, he gets his goods by goods train at a cheap rate of transport. He has to compete against cash on delivery with a minimum charge of 10d. He will get his goods far cheaper, and he can afford to undersell and yet get a decent profit. Another reason is that many customers naturally prefer to handle their goods before they pay the money. The third reason is that he has the personal touch over the counter which counts for a good deal. The fourth reason is that there is a class of customer who like short credit, and this cash on delivery means cash down. A certain class of customer cannot afford that, and the retail trader will retain that trade. Therefore, the retail trader who will be content with a fair profit has no cause of complaint. If the retail trader is not only out for a fair profit but for an extension of his trade, he can extend his circle of custom enormously. In his slack hours in the day he can attend to the cash-on-
delivery orders. By that means, he can bring new life into his business. He can extend his trade beyond the local village. If he goes into the enterprise honestly, he can extend his business to a very large extent over a wide area.
The cash-on-delivery system is long overdue. Several countries have adopted it, and there has not been a single case where any country that has adopted the system has abandoned it. Is not that proof positive that the people towards whom the hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring) is so sym pathetic are satisfied with the system in the countries where it has been adopted? I believe the Post Office workers have given their undertaking to give the system a trial and to do their best to make it a success. A departmental committee which was set up some years ago in order to report on the disparity of the prices received by the producer and the prices paid by the consumer, reported in favour of the introduction of a cash-on delivery system. In their unanimous report in 1923 they urgently pressed that recommendation upon the Postmaster-General. I am delighted that, at last, we have a Postmaster-General who has had the courage to set this system into operation without setting up another committee to report, with the result, possibly, of the question being put off for a further period.
As I am interested in agriculture, I should like to say that we look forward to the time when there will be a cheaper and lower minimum cash-on-delivery rate, and that instead of 4d. the charge will be 2d. That would be an assistance and encouragement to the small house wife and would help the small producer. The new system of cash on delivery will be a. real help to the poultry producer. Hon. Members may say that the large stores will crush out the village retailer. I do not believe that to be true. The large stores charge enormous prices for poultry which you can get far more cheaply in the country. There is a difference of something like 5s. You can have a chicken sent by cash on delivery from the country for a charge of 1s. 1d., that is, 9d. for the parcel post, and 4d. for the cash-on-delivery order. That will help considerably the smallholder who goes in for poultry keeping.
I should like to see, if possible—I do not know whether it is possible—the Ministry of Agriculture setting up a sort of clearing-house for orders, and a card index of smallholders who are willing to produce certain articles such as eggs and poultry, so that anyone in London can apply to the Minister of Agriculture and be put into touch with the small man who is producing these goods, without the medium of advertisement which, naturally, must be expensive. Perhaps at some future date the Government will introduce a preferential parcels post rate for agricultural produce. We must do all we can to get the people back on to the land, and I believe that by help of this kind we can accomplish our object.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I should like to express my views as a provincial trader and my thanks to the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Sir W. Perring), for introducing this question. I entirely support him. He represents the London traders who, I think, really have no complaint against the Postmaster-General, and I am delighted that he is prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with his provincial brethren in order to fight against what we consider is an unjust proposition on the part of the Postmaster-General. We protest that this matter, which has been debated for over 20 years and is a subject of great controversy as between the provincial trader and other people, is introduced now as a sort of departmental decree, without any reference to Parliament. That is a point on which we feel very strongly. We feel that if the matter had been put before Parliament and had received the sanction of Parliament, we could not complain. We believe, as other people believe, in democratic government, and we are prepared to stand by the decision of this House, and we would have done so had the matter been decided by this House before action had been taken by the Postmaster-General.
I am speaking on behalf of 200,000 pro vincial traders who feel that in this way we have been, to use a common phrase, "sold a pup." A deputation went to the Postmaster-General, and we came away believing that before anything further was done in the matter Parliament would be consulted. I hope the Postmaster-General, in his reply, will deal with that point. We are told that the demand has
come really from the agricultural community and that that is the one class which is going to receive some advantage from this scheme. We are also told that an argument in favour of this scheme is that other countries have adopted it and that therefore this country ought to do the same. As regards the agricultural products of other countries, the reports we have received—and we have made very careful inquiries—show that in Denmark perishable goods, such as foodstuffs and agricultural produce, are rarely sent by the cash-on-delivery system. In Sweden, there is no information available. In Norway, very little is forwarded by the cash-on-delivery system. From Australia, the report is that the cash-on-delivery service is not used to any extent for such produce, while, as regards Canada, we can get no information regarding the transmission of these particular commodities by post. These facts prove our contention, right down to the hilt, that instead of this cash-on delivery system being of benefit to agriculture, it will benefit the mail order house firms who are exploiting the public in many cases.
Reference has, been made to the difference between this country and other countries in regard to the density of population. The figures respecting the density of population show that in England the population density is 701 per square mile; in France, 187; in Germany, 348; in the. United States of America, 31; in Canada and Australia 2, and in New Zealand 11. The contention that has been put forward as to the different conditions in this country compared with other co entries really proves that there is no necessity for this system to be introduced, because at the present time, with the local markets—I am speaking as a provincial man who knows something of the subject, because I have been in trade ever since I was 12 years of age, and I know a great deal about the retail trade—there is ample opportunity for the country people to send their products into the markets. People come from the towns into the country with their vans and collect the produce and pay quite good prices to the farmers. If the farmer is going to get any advantage under this cash-on-delivery system, he will have to overcharge. I can assure hon. Members that produce is collected by tradesmen in our provincial towns from the surround-
ing country districts and sold on the basis of 10 per cent profit. If the farmer is going to get any advantage out of this new system, he must charge for his packing. He will have to spend time in packing, and he must charge at any rate 10 per cent. on the top of what he will get from the wholesaler; otherwise, he will find that it will not be any good to him.
With regard to the class of goods for which the smallholder wishes to find a market., such as potatoes, vegetables, and other bulky things, this new system will he of no use to him. Before he can get into communication with the buyer he has to do some advertising. I have done a good deal of advertising in my time, and I know something about it. He will not get good trade by cheap advertising. The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) was a guest of the Advertising Association, and he will hear me out in this, that nothing is so futile as cheap advertising. But r can not imagine the smallholder hoping to gain an extra 2d. a dozen on his eggs or an extra 2d. a 1b. on his butter advertising in the "Daily Mail" at a cost of £14 for a two-inch advertisement. Without advertising he will get only his regular customers, and the cash-on delivery system will, therefore, be of no Else to him.
The result of the introduction of the cash-on-delivery system will be to divert a large volume of trade from the local shopkeepers into the hands of those who contribute nothing to the upkeep of the municipalities. These people will draw the trade from the local shopkeepers and will seriously injure the provincial traders, and I question whether the public, on the whole, will benefit. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) raised the question of the housewife. She said that the house wife wanted this new system, because it will be much better for her chopping. I know something about housewives, and I can tell hon. Members that the housewife, if she is a wise housewife, will not send for a chicken through the post. She will go to the shop herself to select it. Chickens sent by post are sometimes very disappointing.
It has been suggested that this system will be of assistance to the fishing industry. As I am a representative of the fishing industry in this House, I
should like to say something on that subject. The bulk of our trade is done through respectable merchants in the various towns. We find that that system is suitable. As regards the sending of small parcels, Mere is a considerable trade being done in thaht way to-day. Will this cash-on-delivery system be of any benefit to the fishing trade? We are told that the person at the other end will have to pay the charge before they can examine the goods, but, if the Post Office delays in the delivery of the goods, it is very likely that the person to whom the goods are consigned will have no need to open the package. She will know, particularly if it contains fish, that it is not worth while paying for it, and she will tell the postman to take it back.
What will happen as regards perishable goods? There is the week-end difficulty. Is it proposed to provide cold storage accommodation at each local post office? What is to he done with the returns? A figure of 15 per cent. has been quoted by the hon. Member for North Padding ton, but the information which we have had from Chicago, from a large mail order firm, shows that 40 per cent. of the parcels sent out are returned. If that happens there, where the system has been in operation for a considerable time, what will happen here when we introduce this new system? It will not be very long before the people will cease to send perishable goods through the post, and then the Postmaster-General will find that this system will not be such a boon to the producers of foodstuffs as he imagines.
I cannot imagine how he expects the rural postmen to deal with this new traffic without any help or without any assistance in the way of transport, other than the use of a bicycle, as at present. I do not believe that the Postmaster-General will be able to carry on this system without giving extra help to the postmen, and that means extra expense. The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe has already suggested that the minimum charge of 4d. for cash on delivery is going to be almost prohibitive for certain people who sell for small profits. We in the fish trade have been told by the railway companies that one reason why they cannot go back to the old pre-War system of payment of carriage
on delivery is because of the huge cost it will entail for collecting. If it is too costly for the railway companies, what, will it cost the Post Office to carry out this system of collecting the money for the parcels which they deliver?
Finally, I wish to put certain points to the Postmaster-General. I submit that there is no demand for the scheme from any representative section of the public, that the existing local facilities for the sale and purchase of farm and dairy produce, either by the markets or through the shops, are adequate both for seller and buyer, that there is local com petition enough to ensure fair prices, that all parts of the country are reached by existing methods of distribution, which are within easy reach of local centres, and that the scheme could not be used by local traders with any advantage to themselves or to the general public in regard to price and value. I submit also that the system would not have the effect of increasing the trade of the country, but would only divert and centralise it. That is all that it can do. In view of those considerations I ask the Postmaster-General to defer putting the scheme into operation. I have my tongue in my cheek when I say that, because my right hon. Friend has already announced that the system is to come into operation on the 29th. Considering the fact that this. House has not had an opportunity of discussing the matter, it ought to be delayed until, at any rate, we have got the considered opinion of those who represent the people.

Mr. SPENCER: Those who have opposed this innovation have done so very largely from reasons of purely private interest, and not in the interest of the great trading community. More over, their opposition has been narrowed down to the opposition, not of trade in general, but of a particular trade and of minor trades. Neither of the hon. Members who have opposed this innovation have been able to show, and they cannot show, that if the proposal is carried out it is going to affect trade in general adversely. I think it may be said that if there is to be any change in trade, as a result of this proposed system, it will be a change to the advantage of trade as a whole, and I am certain that it will be to the advantage of the consumer.
The opposition have been most illogical. The hon. Gentleman who began this Debate stated that the Post Office or any one else who gave consideration to this question should look at it from every conceivable point of view, from the point of view of the consumer, of the small trader, or the large manufacturer, of the great multiple stores, of the producer and the distributor; and then he went on immediately to base his opposition merely upon the distributing retail traders of the country, and left totally out of his calculations all the other interests to which lie says the Postmaster-General should give consideration.

Sir W. PERRING: May I point out that there is no demand from the public for this system, and that the manufacturer does not come into the picture at all, because he does not come in contact with the public and does his business through the medium of the retailers.

Mr. SPENCER: Not in every instance. There are traders and manufacturers to day who do their own distribution.

Sir W. PERRING: To the public?

Mr. SPENCER: Oh, yes. Therefore, from that point of view the scheme may lead to a greater elimination of the middleman, which is a very much needed change. The hon. Gentleman has just said that there is no demand for this system from the great body of consumers. It is quite true that up to now nobody his attempted to organise the consumers to state vocally their decision in the, question, but if the same trouble had been taken to organise the opinion of the consumers as has been taken to organise the opinion of the small traders of the country, you would have had most vocally the decision of the consumers in favour of this proposal. Those who have opposed this system have had no evidence to submit to the House to prove their case. Their case is that the system will damage the small trader. As far as the small traders are concerned collectively I do not think that that will be true. Individually and in cases where there is a lack of enterprise, it may be so. But where you have a small trader who has enterprise, who is seeking to expand his business, the possibilities of this system will be such as to lend him further aid and to advance his trade rather than restrict it. Therefore
I cannot believe that those who, have been speaking for the small trader have been able to make out a case.
There is another ground of objection, and that is that the Post Office cannot do this thing efficiently. Anyone who has any knowledge of the distribution of parcels in the large towns knows perfectly well that the distributing vans of the Post Office are sometimes only about a quarter full. If the vans could be filled by this system there would be far more revenue for the Post Office, and, instead of the Post Office showing a loss on its transactions, the possibilities are that there would be a great increase of trade, the Post Office would benefit in revenue and the consumer would get a benefit in service. I am just as entitled to say that it will be done successfully and efficiently—I am far more entitled to say that, than hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to say that it will not be done efficiently and will be done at a loss. At least those who are supporting the scheme have the evidence of countries that have adopted the system and have not had to abandon it after giving it a trial. Therefore, if there is any weight of evidence it is on the side of those who are supporting this scheme.
I want to support the scheme on behalf of the consumers who have a limited range of purchase. Everyone who has knowledge of scattered districts knows that it is always difficult to get the article required with an unlimited choice and at a reasonable price. If it is a dress or anything of that kind there is a limited choice, and those who want to keep up with the times have either to go into the towns or to send into the towns for what they want to purchase. Let us suppose that those who are able to frequent large centres of shopping go there and see something they like, though they do not at once purchase it. They go home, and think about it. After that it will be quite easy to despatch a postcard and have a far greater choice than would be possible if no cash system were in operation. It cannot be denied that where you have a limited choice in any rural area there is always a tendency to raise the price. Where choice and competition are limited there is always a tendency for prices to rise. In many respects rural people have to pay a higher price than they would pay if competition were greater.
I support the system also on the ground that I think every encouragement should be given to the Post Office to increase its services. I can understand opposition to that suggestion from some Members of this House on grounds of general principle. They stand for the limitation of all public services. I am consistent when I say that I believe in the extension of public service, and that I believe that by those means we shall be going a very great service to the community. Thirdly, I am supporting the system as an aid to agriculture. If there is anything that we can do to foster agriculture it should be done. I have spent the last four or five days in the Library getting out the returns of agriculture for years and years, viewing the decline in prices of corn, examining the effect it has had on labour, and while I cannot pursue that subject here, I will say in parenthesis that in my opinion to a large extent the solution of the unemployment problem is associated with agriculture. Anything that we can do to eliminate the unnecessary middle men in agriculture, and to get the produce of agriculture direct to the consumer, the better it will be for the farmer.
Take the case of a great harvest, say, of plums or apples, when there is a glut. If you had a system of this kind where, by rapid transit, the farmer could get his plums and apples to the ordinary house holder at special rates, the possibilities are that instead of having to throw them on the manure heap because he cannot get a remunerative price, or sending them to a commission agent in a large centre and having to pay carriage upon them and then to get no return, the farmer will get a reasonable return. If there is one thing more than another that he ought to get it is a reasonable return on the produce that he has cultivated. For all these reasons I believe in this innovation. In the first stages there may be some mishap here and there. One does not expect that the scheme will work like a clock at once. But I believe that in the long run it will prove to be advantageous to the small trader and to trade generally, advantageous to the small farmer and the market gardener, and advantageous to the general consumers of the country.

Captain A. EVANS: I want to join in expressing regret that the Government did not see fit to announce their decision
in this matter long enough ago to give those who are opposed to the proposal an opportunity of airing their views. It would have been very easy for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to have made an announcement in a public speech or by answer to a question in this House that the Government proposed to give effect to this decision as from a certain date. That would have given an opportunity not only for those who are intimately concerned with this matter, but an opportunity for Members of the House, to express their views, in order that those views could be taken into consideration by the Government before the decision became effective. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will tell the House that he did this because he considered it to be in the interest of the community. Is he justified in saying that, unless he has consulted all those interests which are affected? I, personally, do not think the right hon. Gentleman was afraid to let the country know that he proposed to introduce this system, but I feel that people in the country will take that view. Otherwise they will ask, why did he not make the announcement long ago? He must have known that the Government proposed to introduce this scheme by Order in Council, because he had prepared the necessary machinery, arid it would have been much fairer to the provincial traders, who will be adversely affected, if he had given them an opportunity of registering their opinions.
As has already been asked most forcibly, what is the reason for this extraordinary change of front on the part of the Post Office? In 1923, in spite of many deputations and many questions in this House the Government's considered opinion was that it was not desirable in the interests of the retail trader that this change should be made. What is responsible for this alteration in the view of the Post Office? I know when a proposal of this kind is made it is usual for the Minister concerned to cast about to see whether such a system has been tried elsewhere, and whether it has proved a success or otherwise. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's investigations carried him as far as India. The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) earlier in the Debate said this policy had been a
success in India. Personally I am not going to express a contrary opinion, but I invite the House to consider the opinion of an expert. Those who are interested in this matter will have read an interesting letter, which appeared in the "Times" yesterday morning, from no less a person than the late Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs in India, who writes:
 In India over 11¼ million articles were despatched by cash-on-delivery post last year, and the trade collections amounted to 265 millions of rupees; but there is little doubt that the parcel portion of the service is run at a loss to the Post Office and that the larger the business becomes the greater the eventual loss. In addition to loss, the Post Office of India has learnt by bitter experience that the cash-on-delivery branch of the Department gives more trouble than all the other branches put together.
He gives some reasons for this and they include:

"(a) The maintenance of numerous small accounts.
(b) The high percentage of refused parcels amounting in India to an average of 15 per cent.
(c) The delay in effecting delivery, as money is frequently not forthcoming when the postman presents a parcel, with the result that the parcel has to be taken to the Post Office and kept in deposit."
In face of the experience of such an expert, this House is entitled to regard the financial aspect of this experiment. It may do some good if this experiment makes a loss. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will no longer be in a position to point to the Post Office as being an example of successful Government trading. But we must ask ourselves: Is the Postmaster-General justified in gambling with that surplus of which he is so justly proud? We were told only the other day that the Government are unable to economise in the cost of administrative and social services to a greater extent than £10,000,000, but in spite of that the Post master-General proposes to introduce an experiment without any apparent limit on the liability of the Post Office. I observe in the Estimates of the Post Office, which only reached us this morning, an additional sum of £484,835 for salaries. Does that include the cost of additional labour necessary for this system? If, as has been stated, no additional staff is to be engaged, we are entitled to know on what this sum is being spent and how the necessity arises
for this increase at a time when it is vital that every possible economy should be made in our administrative services.
I have no doubt the Postmaster-General assumes and believes the system will be a success, but has he any figures to sup port that view? Can he estimate the possible revenue or loss? These are points which ought to be clearly understood by the House before we commit ourselves to this proposal. What will be the effect on trade and industry? It will be agreed that this is an age of decentralisation. In the year of grace 1926 and in a highly industrialised country like this the future does not lie in the centralisation of sits activities, but rather in the decentralisation of the majority of its resources. Facilities already exist for the purchase of goods by post. All one has to do, instead of paying on delivery, is to send the cash in advance, and the majority of the large concerns spend hundreds of thousands of pounds in advertising goods which will he sent either on approbation or on receipt of a stated amount. There fore, I do not think this innovation is necessary at the present time. The local shopkeepers are the natural distributors of goods in their own neighbourhoods, and their position under this system will be a serious one. Local money will find its way to the large stores in the big towns instead of to the local traders. The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) at Question Time yesterday told us not to worry about the small traders, but to consider the position of the women who wanted to purchase from the London stores. We should, however, remember that if their trade is diverted into other channels local traders will not be able to pay rates and taxes, and those rates and taxes will not be able to bear the cost of social services to which the hon. Member is desirous of adding. Let us take the view of a typical trader in this matter. This is from a firm of outfitters in my own constituency of Cardiff:
In reading some of the opinions of the leading managing directors of large London stores I can well imagine how jubilant they must be over their great victory, and the tremendous pull they have added to their already prosperous businesses. One has only to glance at their share quotations to realise this. The big London stores have facilities which can never apply to us, such as get-
ting an option on goods without actually committing themselves in any way, requiring no extra staff to cope with their large orders which pour in on them, this work being undertaken by the wholesale merchants or manufacturers, and when they have run the line to its utmost they drop it, leaving the wholesale merchant with the remainder. Small business concerns are doing their best to keep their staffs together.
I would remind the House that this condition applies particularly to South Wales, where we have experienced a period of trade depression unknown in the previous history of the Principality. In Cardiff only the other day a local trader put this point to me. The glamour to the customer of an article purchased in London is in itself sufficiently harmful to the provincial trader, without this addition to the gigantic pull which is already placed in the hands of the London concerns. That is the opinion of a practical trader. We have also to consider the fact that this is a manufacturing and not an agricultural country. It is a highly industrialised country. We have better means of com munication and distribution than any other country in the world, and in face of the representations which have been advanced on both sides of the House, most earnestly ask the Government, it they cannot refrain from introducing this scheme to give it a fair trial for a year and after that period to review the whole facts and the whole results. I hope that in doing so they will be careful to collect the opinions of those most intimately concerned. I feel confident, if the Post master-General undertakes to do so, those of us who feel that our constituents are not being fairly treated in this matter, will go away from the House to-night in better heart. All I would say to this House, and to the people of South Wales, is that whether this scheme is introduced or not.
Selling or buying, Cardiff's worth trying.

Viscount WOLMER: This is a very interesting discussion in which a considerable diversity of opinion has been expressed, and perhaps the House would like to hear what the Government have to say as a defence to the impeachment which the hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring) has so fully and so courteously levelled against it. My hon. Friend makes complaint, in the first instance, of the fact that the chambers of commerce in the country had
not been consulted. I do not think, however, that is a fair criticism. It is over a year since I myself went into the lion's den of the Associated Chambers of Commerce and informed them that this matter was engaging the careful consideration of the Postmaster-General. They were not at all slow to take the hint, and since that time we have been kept fully informed of the views of the chambers of commerce by deputations and by resolutions. The Postmaster-General deliberately wished this matter to be canvassed by the chambers of commerce, chambers of agriculture, societies representing smallholders and all the other interests involved, and I would not like him to think that we had not, paid the greatest attention to the opinions of the chambers of commerce. I quite admit that, the great majority of them are against the Government on this point, but other interests have a right to speak on this subject, and for reasons which I am about to give, the Government felt they had no logical reply to those other interests. My hon. Friend asked why, if the Postmaster-General in 1923 said that the minimum cost of such a service to the Post Office would be 6d. or 7d., the present Post master-General has been able to name the minimum cost as 4d.
8.0 P. M.
The only thing that I can say in reply to my hon. Friend is that, when this matter began to be seriously considered, the question of cost was very closely gone into. Calculations on the basis of the time factor and overhead charges were very carefully entered into and the charges which the Postmaster-General now proposes are such as, an the opinion of his advisers, will enable the service to be run at a moderate Profit. There is no sort of question of this being a subsidised service. It is going to be a self-supporting service which is not going to cost the taxpayer a penny and, in the opinion of our advisers, is going to bring in a. moderate profit to the State. May I say to those hon. Members who cast some doubt on the validity of those calculations that nothing impresses the layman coming into the Post Office more than the amazing way in which the permanent officials have been able to forecast the general tendency of postal development for our Estimates.

Sir W. PERRING: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether that charge is based on any particular number of parcels or volume of business?

Viscount WOLMER: No, it is based on the time factor, on the amount of time that it takes to handle individual parcels and individual trade charge forms through the various stages through which they have to go. That is the way in which the parcel post is very largely calculated in Post Office Estimates. My hon. Friend asks what has happened since 1923 to cause the present Postmaster-General to take a different view from the Post master-General of that day? In answer to him, I should like to say that the Government feel it is their duty to do everything that they can to assist those who are living in the country and living by agriculture, and that when they have been pressed, as they have been pressed by the representatives of agriculture, to give this facility, there really is no valid answer that the Government can make in reply. He has spoken as if this is a great experiment, but really it is a service which is in operation in every civilised country in the world, and it is merely a combination of the system of parcels post and postal order service. As an hon. Member pointed out, we have bad it in this country ourselves 20 years in regard to foreign parcels. We as a Government have been pressed by demands from the Central Chamber of Agriculture, the Scottish National Farmers' Union, several comity Chambers of Agriculture, the Smallholders' Associations, and Members of Parliament representing agricultural constituencies. We have been told plainly and emphatically in the Linlithgow Re-port that this is one of the things any Government ought to do in order to benefit agriculture and smallholders. Therefore the Government have really not got a valid reply to those representations.
I do not want to pretend that this is going to solve the agricultural problem. I do not want to pretend that this is going to revolutionise the methods by which smallholders sell their produce at present. But I do say that this is going to be of considerable convenience and use, not only to smallholders but to anyone who lives in the country. It is useful, not only in the selling of their produce, but in the purchases they have to make.
I ask my hon. Friend to consider the position of the small farmer or small holder. Say he is working 50 acres, and he has a piece of agricultural machinery such as a reaper. He very likely bought it second-hand at a sale, for that is what those small men do. If it breaks in the middle of a harvest and he wants a, spare part, at the present moment it is very difficult for him to get that spare part quickly, He is not a regular customer of the manufacturer, he has not got credit, and he does not know exactly how much that small part will cost. By this system of cash-on-delivery it is possible for him to send a telegram for that part to be sent to him quickly, and the manufacturer or dealer will send it on and will get paid. Similarly in regard to medicines, which are frequently urgently required in the country. It is in those directions that I look on this service as being of great assistance to those who live in the country as well as in regard to the marketing of their produce.
I really think that my hon. Friend and those who have supported him this after noon have really attempted to prove too much. I noted down some of the statements which they made in their speeches, some of the arguments which they would have us believe. Let me taken them in pairs. In the first place, it is going to do great injury to the retail traders; secondly, nobody is going to make any use of the service.

Sir W. PERRING: I did not say that.

Viscount WOLMER: It has been very strongly said by some hon. Members this afternoon. Thirdly, we must beware of the difficulties that have arisen in India, but we must not pay any attention to the advantages that have accrued in Den mark. Then my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington urged the Government to confine the service to agricultural produce. He went on to say that agriculture did not want it.

Sir W. PERRING: What I said was that it is the retail trade of the country who did not make a demand for it. I said it would be of no use to them.

Viscount WOLMER: I am very glad to have that disclaimer from my hon. Friend. He said that it would be of no use to agriculture. Then he rebukes the Post master-General for tendering gratuitous
advice to the retail traders. May I suggest that he lays himself open to the same rebuke for tendering the same advice to those who are representing agriculture? I cannot help feeling that this matter has been greatly exaggerated from both points of view. There are those who have built wholly undue hopes on the inauguration of this service, and there are certainly those who have built wholly unwarranted fears. I could not help being reminded, when I was listening to the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), to the hon. Member for North Paddington and others whom I heard speaking this afternoon and on the deputations, of some of the fears which were expressed at the time when the parcels post itself was inaugurated by the Post Office some 40 years ago. May I read two paragraphs from a typical letter, dated 29th June, 1882, from the political ancestors of my hon. Friend's Constituents:
SIR,
Have you ever thought of the effects that will be produced on the retail traders in country towns and districts by the introduction of the parcels post? It will very nearly destroy them in almost every trade. The heads of families of the upper and middle classes, who now deal largely with the Civil Service and other stores and with the Lon don houses, leaving only trifling odds and ends to their local tradesmen which they reckon not worth paying carriage for, will then make it a practice of sending their orders, even for trifles, to London.
This will concentrate trade in London to the disadvantage of country traders. It will gradually throw out of employment a great number of respectable girls who find healthy occupation in country towns, in workrooms as machinists, milliners, dress makers, etc., and will increase the number of poor London workers who are far too numerous already. It will increase the trade of these huge stores and monster houses, and for a time those who trade with them from the country will think they are doing so at a great saving. Evils will soon manifest themselves which will demonstrate -the fact that the system he proposes establishing is not founded on a just or true principle.
Really, that is almost like the peroration of my hon. Friend. Similarly, when we introduced the foreign cash-on-delivery system, in 1904 Lord Derby, Postmaster-General, had to listen to the argument of the Federation of Grocers' Associations that it was going to be of no benefit whatsoever to British trade, and that, on
the contrary, we would be injured by the importation of foreign-made goods through this system. What has been the result? Why, last year, under the foreign cash-on-delivery system we bought from abroad 10,000 parcels at a cost of £20,000. That means that 10,000 parcels came into this country for which we paid foreigners £20,000. We sent out 270,000 parcels, for which the foreigner paid us £696,000, so that those evil fore bodings were also entirely dissipated by the events. I do venture to think that it will happen in the same way in this case, and that the "dungeons in the air" which my hon. Friend has been building and the fears which his constituents are nursing will not be realised. We will only be following in the wake of all our Dominions and all our Continental neighbours. It is absurd to say that we are not to pay any attention to the ex perience of France, Belgium and Germany. Their conditions are not so dissimilar from ours that we can afford to ignore their experience altogether. The Postmaster-General has made most detailed inquiries in those countries and has ascertained that the working of the system has not stamped out or injured the small trader, but is regarded by the small trader and everybody else as an ordinary service of the parcels post and one which is a great convenience to every body concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington asked one or two questions which I think I ought to answer before I sit down. He made a great complaint that we have not already taken on any extra staff to deal with this new service. I say, in reply to him, that the parcels post service at the present moment is so vast that the Postmaster-General's advisers are confident of being able to take this new service in their stride. We are at present dealing with 120,000,000 parcels a year. The increase in the parcels post caused by the introduction of this method will not in the opinion of the Postmaster-General's advisers be more than the ordinary expansion of the service can readily assimilate. Therefore we think that a rapid increase of staff will not be necessary, that no great increase of expense will be involved, that the service will not expand to such an extent as to revolutionise the trading channels of this country or to realise the fears that some of the traders have
expressed, but that it will be a great convenience and help to all those who live in the country, whether in their capacity as producers or in their capacity as consumers, and that it is a. reform which the Post Office ought to have brought in many years ago.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: The House has listened, I am sure, with interest to a statement which it would have welcomed a long time since from the Noble Lord. The great burden of the complaint that the House has to make is that it has been kept so much in the dark as to what was the intention of the Government, and there have probably been many misunderstandings arising which might have been dispelled by an earlier and exhaustive statement by the Post master-General. After all, there is a very considerable change in the policy which is now being adopted, and I do not think the Noble Lord has really explained exactly what has occasioned such a complete volte-face between 1923 and 1925. At the same time, I think a good deal too much has been said on both sides. I believe a good many of the fears which have been expressed as to what will be the result of the cash-on-delivery system are exaggerated, but I also think that a good many of the things that have been sail in support of the introduction of the system are equally exaggerated.
For one thing, the main case of the Noble Lord is, if I understood him aright, that it is going to assist mainly people in the country and the agriculturists generally, and I noticed that the Post master-General applauded once or twice during the Debate when references were made to the Report of the Linlithgow Committee. I had the privilege of giving evidence on many occasions before that Committee, and of producing a good many costings with regard to the different kinds of agricultural produce, and I can not yet understand where the advantage is going to be to the agriculturist in the system which has been inaugurated. The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), who referred to the delivery of a chicken from a rural area to a town, would, I thought, do well to study with me some time the detailed costings of a retailer through from his purchase direct in the country to the delivery to the customer, and then compare it with what would be the cost
under this system. So far as the consumer is concerned, I conceive that he will get no advantage at all—absolutely none. [Interruption.] I am only trying to show, not that I am against the system, but that I think many of the things that have been said in support of it are very much exaggerated. [An HON. MEMBER "You are on both sides !"] I am on both sides. I am quite willing to see some sort of experiment carried out, but I do not want to see it adopted in such a way that people in the country districts will think that a new heaven and a new earth are to be brought in, because I think that is absurd.
Another hon. Member referred to the agriculturist's market, but I very much doubt whether this system will do much good in that respect, when you are faced with this position, that the agriculturist's market is captured, not by the retailers, but by the ordinary agricultural producers of other countries, who do not seek to deliver in small quantities, but beat him in his own market with bulk parcels, and not by sending little parcels. It would be far better, if you are going to consider a remedy for the agriculturist in this country, to develop something approaching a more scientific grading of his products and a possibility of handling them in greater bulk than can be done by a parcel post system the maximum weight to be carried by which is 11 lbs., and when one comes to the kind of problem that has been referred to, of a glut of fruit, it would be exceedingly difficult to arrange, through a system of cash-on-delivery, to be able to dispose of a rapidly perishing crop like plums, for instance, by means of individual deliveries to consumers, although one might think it would be helpful and desirable to try to use that system. As a matter of fact, the only possible way 6f disposing of such a large surplus, if it is not possible to obtain a retail price to cover the cost of carriage, is to dispose of it to those who can use it in bulk, such as jam makers and the like, and I am sure that the Postmaster-General would not suggest that in the case of perishables like that he will bring a solution to the agriculturist by this system.
It has been suggested that this system will assist the economy of the Post Office in helping to use their rolling stock and
the like. That may be so, and I have not a word to say against that, but it will also perhaps interfere with the use of the rolling stock of people who are already organised to do a distributing trade. My hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) referred to her own town, and said you would do a great deal by a woman sending a post card and getting her purchase delivered under this system, but I would suggest that a postcard to the local co-operative society would get immediate response, owing to the network of transport which covers the whole of that area. I do not want to oppose this system in any carping spirit. If there is a feeling that the experience of other countries has been beneficial, and it is thought that it might help a little in this direction, I would suggest that it be given a trial, but let the Postmaster-General watch it very carefully, and let him learn a lesson from his experience this year. That is, if he is going to make a change after 12 months, let him, not be so unmindful of the various people to be consulted as he has been on this occasion.
The Noble Lord said he was quite sure the Postmaster-General was desirous of having all the interests concerned duly canvassed, but the one interest that he does not seem to have canvassed was the organised consumers. I have not seen any communication from the Postmaster-General to the great consumers' organisation in this country, responsible for a, retail turnover of £200,000,000 a year. Perhaps they were overlooked, as some times happens.

Viscount WOLMER: We should be delighted to hear from them.

Mr. ALEXANDER: We shall always be ready to communicate with the Post master-General, but we cannot do it when we do not know what he intends to do, and all that I am asking is that, if he comes to the conclusion, at the end of a given period that this experiment has not been se much worth while as some people have suggested, and that he is going to make a change, he might really consult all the interests concerned and have it adopted beforehand. He ought not to adopt the high handed action he has taken on this occasion and bring in what is,
after all, a fundamental reform without any reference to or authority from the elected representatives of the people.

Captain HENDERSON: May I, on behalf of a very large and very scattered agricultural constituency, welcome most warmly this Cash-on-Delivery system which the Postmaster-General is bringing in? Some previous speaker has assured the Postmaster-General that there is no demand for it. I venture to disagree. Speaking on behalf of my constituency, there is a large and very scattered demand for it. The demand arose in this way. An enormous number of Canadian soldiers returned, during the War, to visit their relatives, and it was a matter of general comment that we had not got the ordinary postal facilities in this country to which they had been accustomed for several years in Canada, and especially in the United States. Other hon. Members say that they think we are building too great hopes on the results of this proposal. May I venture to call the attention of the House to the result that has come to the agricultural population of the United States? Last year this service was utilised in the United States to the extent of over £11,000,000, or 55,000,000 dollars, and I think the House has no idea of the enormous extent to which this service will be used, now that the opportunity has been given to the small holders, the allotment keepers, and the small farmers.
The fears that this will damage the small local shopkeepers are, I think, quite unfounded. When this was first introduced in Canada, exactly the same fears were expressed there, that the small local retailers would suffer. Now the small retailers in Canada are the greatest users of this service. I speak more especially of the Eastern part, where conditions are much more comparable with those in England. One hon. Member said he thought that when they came to compare the cost of the Post Office with that of the retailer, the agriculturist would find the margin was small, and that it would not be a paying proposition for him to retail eggs, poultry, and so on, direct to the consumer. I venture to think that what he should look at is the disparity between prices paid to the producer in the country to-day and what the consumer in the town has to pay, and, if considered
from that point of view, the margin will be found to be more than ample to make a considerable reduction to the consumer in the town, and give a very considerably enhanced profit to the producer in the country.
I do not wish to traverse ground that has already been gone over, but I do not think I shall be in the least exaggerating if I describe this service as the charter of success to the smallholder, to the allotment-keeper and to the small farmer of this country. It was the one thing that was wanted to enable the small farmer to get into direct touch with an enormous unexplored body of customers, and eliminate to a vastly increasing amount of intermediate profits coming between him and the consumer. I do not think the House realises on what a very small margin of profit agricultural products are produced to-day. The margin is so small that any addition to it is more than welcome. If I might venture to put the thing on a practical basis, the account that is paid last by any Member of this House is an account of 6s., 8s. or 10s., for the simple reason that he does not wish to write out a cheque. He intends to get a postal order, but generally forgets. The result is I hat the small agricultural producer, who is working on a small margin of capital, has very often to wait a long time for the payment of small bills.
Under this system you eliminate bad debts, and reduce the amount of capital required in business, on account of the rapid turnover, and if the customer be not satisfied, he is not committed to any liability. In the United States they have even gone further. They have permitted smallholders to advertise in the local post offices for a small rent. People motoring through the country take note of the names of agriculturists advertised in the local post offices offering to supply agricultural produce. That trade last year from the country to the towns in the United States reached over £8,000,000. I do not think the Postmaster-General himself can realise what a great vista and future he has offered to the small holders of this country, and, on their behalf, I wish to welcome most cordially this most useful measure of public service which he has introduced.

Mr. BROMLEY: I am rising to criticise what, in ray opinion, is a some what ill-considered administrative action on
the part of the Postmaster-General. I am differing from some hon. Friends of mine who have previously spoken from this side of the House, and I can only wish that the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), when she said that she was doubtful whether she was right in supporting the Government, had listened to that very natural intuition which tells us we are bound to he wrong in supporting this Government, judging by its actions since it has been in power. I want, first of all, to examine where any of these valuable results, which have been suggested by so many previous speakers, are likely to come to the community as a. whole. One hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite spoke of the desire of the farming element to assist the community. I think the experience of the community as to the altruistic nature of the farmer during the past few years will not lead us to fall into that trap, and as for the great assistance to the smallholders or the farming class, let us look at it as practical people who have had some experience of produce coming from the country into the town. How is it going to assist the farming people? They will not send trusses of hay or a, ton of mangel-wurzels or swedes through the post. [An How. MEMBER: "What about spring chicken?"] Spring chicken and other perishable articles of foodstuff in small quantities will be very dubious articles of consumption after they have passed through the post, and I cannot conceive any farmer, in the ordinary accepted sense of the term, sending any of his produce by the new parcel post system.
With regard to the remarks of my hon. Friend on the subject of fruit, I know something of the small fruit-grower, and we can all deplore the fact that every year, either in a lean year or in a prolific year, so splendidly managed is the economy of our nation, that tons of beautiful fruit are allowed to rot on the ground, because it does not pay to market it. That is perfectly true, but how are you going to get the smallholder to advertise sufficiently to get the ordinary house wife into touch with him so as to buy his produce? We know as practical people it is impossible. I would suggest to the House that this is an ill-considered scheme, because it cannot bring to the
ordinary consumer in the town the pro duct of the farmer. Without some very much further and more intensive organisation it cannot bring the ordinary pro duct of the market gardener or the small fruit-grower.
I can quite conceive the Government bringing the scheme in for the benefit of the small people, but it will really only benefit the great multiple trading concerns and the great newspapers which will carry their advertisements. The consumer surely ought to be sufficiently wide awake to consider that the extra charges for delivery, of whatever the article may be is likely to be passed on to him by the great multiple shops. These are not going to bear it by any means. The Postmaster-General, again might consider how he possibly is going to conduct this business in any magnitude. We have heard that it is going to be the produce of the market garden and the small fruit growers, and, if so, it is going to be perishable goods. Consider the postman in the street waiting while the intelligent housewife opens the parcel containing the fowl from the farmer to see whether it is fresh, or while she examines the parcel of butter, or care fully opens any other package of perish able articles to see whether they have arrived in a proper condition! The, thing appears to me to be too ridiculous.
I do again ask the House to consider whether it is possible that this scheme is going to benefit the consumer in any way. The people it will benefit are the great multiple shops who, by the use of advertisements in all manner of news papers, Sunday and week-day, will be able to supply, not perishable foodstuffs from the farm or the market garden, but all manner of necessities apart from food stuffs. These, I believe, will come through the post, but will this be an advantage to the community as a whole? We know that many working people are deceived very often through the specious advertisements appealing to them on behalf of the mail order business. They get goods delivered, and have very great difficulty in getting justice if they have been, badly treated. The ordinary working-class housewife going to the local shops can examine her purchase. She knows what she is getting. She can deal with the shopkeeper over the counter. I again suggest that the only people likely
to be advantaged by the scheme of the Postmoster-General are the great multiple shops supplying other than perishable goods—some of it shoddy—and the big advertisement agents and the newspapers.
Let us see if it will damage the community at all. I represent a community—Barrow-in-Furness—which has suffered very much of recent years, possibly more in proportion, owing to unemployment and trade depression, than any other town in the country. In a lesser degree, perhaps, a great many industrial centres have suffered, and are suffering, and unfortunately it has not only been the weekly wage earner that has suffered. There are in a place like Barrow-in-Furness rows of shops where there were prosperous small shopkeepers. Many of these shops are standing empty that were carrying on business or are only just making that thin margin that enables the traders to live. I am not going to suggest that the mail order business which the Postmaster-General has instituted will at once do away with that margin and wipe away all their business; but I do seriously suggest this: that it may just take that little cream off their business which is the difference between success and dismal failure, and possible bankruptcy. The benefit will go to the great syndicates and newspapers and advertisement agents to meet the desire—the laudable desire—of the Postmaster-General to extend his business as the Postmaster-General of this nation. I have indicated that in the interests of the community this House should not let pass this particular Measure without severe criticism.
The problem, I suggest, will not end there. The small trader—and he is generally a Tory—and I am not speaking for him because he is Socialistic!—and can never understand his point of view!—is the person more than another whose very existence and welfare depends on the wages of the working people. If they get half-a-crown more wages it at once goes to the local shopkeepers. It will go further in future. There is already sufficient suffering, unemployment, and low wages—wages reduced by millions and millions during the last few years. It is all bad enough. The attitude of this Government has been to get all national taxation, so far as possible, pushed on
to the local rates; to get men off unemployment benefit on to the Poor Law. Towns like that which I have the honour to represent are in a particularly parlous state. Do not let this House overlook that fact. Because of these various things, because of the lack of wages, and the plight of the shopkeepers, the rates of the towns are thousand's of pounds in arrears, and many a small trader is faced for the rest of his life with only a meagre, hand-to-mouth existence. If we allow now his little margin of profit or living to be swept away in the next three or four years, what is going to happen to many of our towns and townships? Many of our towns are already heavily burdened, and you may destroy the small trader in the interests of the great firms. I do not think it is a wise procedure for the Postmaster-General to institute this scheme, and it is certainly not wise of this House to pass it without very serious consideration.
I have sufficient confidence in the good sense of the House that it is not necessary to make a lengthy speech, if hon. Members will keep in mind the few salient points that have been brought to their notice. I would appeal seriously to the Postmaster-General, even at this late hour, to consider what he may be doing. It has been stated by previous speakers that he might give the thing a trial for 12 months and see how it works out. I would respectfully suggest to him that if the scheme comes into operation, if he can discriminate, I feel confident he will find that. one half of the produce carried will not be from farmers, fruit growers, or market gardeners; it will be from such commercialised concerns as I have indicated and for the benefit of these, and to the detriment of the provincial shopkeeper and ratepayers of the small towns who are already struggling merely to live. I would conclude by asking the Postmaster-General another question in which we on these benches are somewhat interested. I see by the Memorandum which I have obtained in the Vote Office that a postman will be allowed to collect on his round charges up to £5.
I once had the, I was going to say honour and I had almost said the misery, of serving in the Post Office. I was a civil servant when I was 12 years of age, carrying letters for 4s. a week. I did not put up many houses on that money, and
I realise that wages of postal servants are not what they ought to he. When this scheme comes into operation we shall ask men not only to deliver parcels but to collect very large sums of money. It will be something more than an automatic delivery of letters and parcels; it will require care in the reckoning of cash and the giving of change, and there will be the responsibility for the money. Will the Minister tell the House whether pro vision has been made for increased re muneration for the people who will take on these added difficulties and added responsibilities? Finally, I would ask the Minister if he has seriously considered the possibility of ruining not hundreds but thousands of provincial shopkeepers, and, possibly, damaging very seriously, if not beyond repair in our time, the financial position of some of our provincial towns and cities.

Orders of the Day — LABOUR MIGRATION.

Captain GUEST: I do not think an apology is necessary for asking the House to consider a somewhat different problem. I am emboldened to ask the House to consider once again the subject we discussed last week, unemployment, by two considerations, the first being that a good deal of interest was taken in a proposal I made then and the second, and much more important, being the announcement in to-day s Press of the Government's attitude towards the Coal Report. I see in the Press to-day a list of proposals in that Report which will involve action by the Government. Number 11 being as follows:
The Government to facilitate the transfer of displaced labour and to provide funds for the purpose.
That, coupled with the warning in the Report that almost as sure as we are here to-night there is bound to be not only a grave dislocation of labour, but a great deal more unemployment, seems to be a reasonable excuse for asking the House to consider this problem. The proposal I put forward last Thursday was, roughly speaking, that a real attempt should be made to take an expeditionary force of labour, as it has been described, and to employ it on useful works of development in various parts of the Dominions. Since then I have been warned of the difficulties. May I assure the House that nobody is more aware of
the difficulties than I am myself, and as I appealed to the House last week to try if possible to treat this problem in a non-party spirit, the first thing I would like to do would be to clear up misunderstandings. I am anxious to get some thing done. I am continually thinking of this army of the unemployed, and I know that my hon. Friends on this side of the House, as well as my hon. Friends on the other side of the House, are equally anxious to see a remedy found for the present state of things.
The first of the misunderstandings which have come to my notice from the Labour Benches is that there is some element of compulsion in my proposal. I assure hon. Members that is not my intention at all. I want this emigration to be on an entirely voluntary basis. To overcome the second misunderstanding, it should be on a temporary basis. The third point I want to make clear is that I am not by preference turning to the Dominions rather than the home land, for this work of development, but have only done so because it will enable the problem to be dealt with more rapidly and cheaply. I know the arguments put for ward in favour of the development of the home land, and I admit the strength of them, but I am thinking all the time not only of the million people still unemployed, but of the next 300,000 who may be thrown out of work this summer—that is, the army which the Coal Commissioners warned the Government they must not only take steps to find money for, but must prepare plans to transfer as displaced labour. If I could possibly carry with me the representatives of labour I feel that the proposal, for what it is worth, would receive serious and sympathetic investigation.
I will to-night touch only upon a few points as they have occurred to me since the Debate last week. First, I submit that when we are dealing, or trying to deal, with a problem of such magnitude, we must give the scheme a good name from the start. If a dog is given a bad name it is very hard for him to shake it off. This army must not be regarded as an unemployed army for whom jobs are being found in remote corners of the Empire. They must be described as an army of pioneers in Empire development. If we could get that idea into the minds of
the great leaders of labour, I believe they would be able to encourage men to volunteer to join this army. The formation of the force would be so simple that it is hardly necessary for me to waste the time of the House with suggestions. One would naturally open lists for volunteers. I said a week ago that, obviously, it would be easier to take single men than married men, but I do not think married men ought to be excluded from under taking temporary employment from home. It would he quite easy to have a system of remittances home from the wages they earned in the Dominions, or there might be some system of separation allowances such as there was during the War. It has been said, "You can get recruits, but where are you going to get officers? The Ex-Officers' Association know that there are just as many hard cases amongst officers who cannot. get work as there are amongst men who cannot get work, and those are men who have been trained in organisation and discipline, and I am perfectly certain there will lad no difficulty in finding men to handle the army.
Let rue turn for a minute to the "campaign," as I described it, itself. The campaign is the scheme upon which this army would be set to work. I am certain that in the pigeon holes of the secretariat of the Overseas Settlement Committee there must be innumerable schemes. Those schemes have been put before them in the past and pigeon holed, possibly because they were too big—not, I expect, because they were too small. But what I wish to draw attention to is that here we have a committee who have proved themselves able to handle vast numbers of people. In one year, I think they handled as many as 283,000 people who went to different parts of the world. The figures for last year, I am sorry to say, are the lowest for a century, having fallen as low as 67,000 odd. I am convinced that in the pigeon holes of that committee we could find the schemes; and I am perfectly certain that the committee have the ability, the know ledge and the experience to handle a proposal such as I am submitting to the House.
Since the Debate last week I have myself received schemes from people who are keen on Empire development and keen on the solution of the unem-
ployed problem. I have been through a few of them, and I will give the House one as an illustration. I said last week there were great tracts of undeveloped land in Western Canada, but I then had no knowledge of the scheme I propose to refer to now—not the slightest know ledge of the fact that people had been working on it, as far as I can make out, for some time. I presume it had started or a commercial basis, but I am not concerned with that. Of course, if any scheme is undertaken the Government at tic me and the Dominion Government concerned must come to some arrangement by which the benefits that accrue from the labour of the army must be divided in some proper ratio. As an illustration of the sort of scheme which could be undertaken if the Government wore brave enough, I give this scheme for the development of what is called Peace River Valley. I have never been to Peace River Valley, but I have read a long report about it, and I conceive the report to be an accurate statement of what took place and of the commercial possibilities.
It seems that if only a railway could be taken into that valley the possibilities would be enormous. But supposing it could be done, and the burden could be shared by the local Dominion Governments and the Home Government, then the financial difficulties might be surmounted. Those who have drawn up this report state that the Governments of Alberta and British Columbia have guar anteed to pay 50 per cent. of the total cost of the construction of the railway, which would amount to about £11,000,000. It is said that this development would employ probably not less than 20,000 men, and that by the time the railway had been working for a year there would be a sufficient development to accommodate 2,000 families. Those amounts are not very big when you consider the vast sums we are spending in this country upon unproductive schemes.
There are many other schemes. We have only to read the newspapers day by day to see what an immense amount of work of this kind could be done if undertaken upon a sufficiently large scale. Some time ago, on one large ranch in Australia, there occurred a loss of 40,000 head of cattle through drought, and it must be remembered that an efficient
scheme of irrigation would have saved all that stock. Of course, there are the losses sustained in the same way by a good many other farmers of which we have not heard. If those who are interested in this subject will only look around the Dominions they will find scheme after scheme for dealing with this problem if the Government would only be brave enough to tackle it in a courageous manner.
Now I come to the side of this subject with which I am not very conversant, that is the financial side. I know there are many hon. Members of this House who are financiers, and who are just as keen in their desire to help in regard to the problem of unemployment as I am. If they would only give a little of their brains to studying the financial side, I am sure their time would not be wasted. I listened to the Minister of Labour on Thursday when he was dealing with the Government policy in regard to unemployment, and he summed up by saying that it was necessary to secure the preservation of the nation's credit. Obviously, that is a mere platitude which does not help the unemployed. What we want is an intelligent use of the national credit for the national benefit. What are the methods by which this money is being spent at the present time? The House has discussed the Trade Facilities Act, and I think one and all have come to the conclusion already that that is not an intelligent use of the national credit. There may have been a few small industries which have been put on their legs in this way, bpt on the whole the scheme of offering trade facilities has not proved a great success. Again the money we have spent on palliative schemes is regarded as being very largely a waste of money. Besides this, the spending if large sums of money on local relief schemes by local authorities is running them into debt, and I think that is an unintelligent use of the national credit.
9.0 P.M.
The size of the scheme I have suggested and the financial liabilities involved are bound to be very great. The sending of an expeditionary army of this kind with all its outfit and paying good wages means a tremendous capital outlay, yet we did not think these sums were very large a few years ago when we were fighting for our lives. It is just as much our duty now
to fight for the moral of the unemployed as it was during the War. This is the aftermath of the War, and it is not the fault of those who are unemployed that they are unable to obtain work. There may be just a few who loaf deliberately, but taking the unemployed in the bulk I think they are as deserving of our attention as any of the troops we sent abroad.
I suggest that we should float a development loan of not less than £100,000,000. You could get subscriptions from the Dominions as well as from the Home Government. If you do not do this, you will only continue spending large sums in driblets upon unproductive work. Under the scheme I have suggested, where would economies at once show themselves? Some hon. Members may work out other economies, but there is one which comes to my notice. Take the number of miners who will be on the hands of the relief committees, whether nationally or locally, within the next few months. Take the figures of miners likely to be unemployed which have been mentioned, and they cannot be less than 150,000. Why, Sir, that would represent, at 15s. a, week, a sum of £10,000,000. Is it not worth while reckoning up the amount we should spend upon schemes which, on the one side, have the effect of demoralising people, and, on the other side, consider the much greater advantage that would accrue if that sum could be spent upon schemes developing our Dominions?
The obvious advantages if the scheme could be brought to fruition are known to the House. The spreading of our population throughout the Empire, if it could be done in harmony with the views of the Dominion Governments them selves, would, obviously, be a great advantage to all concerned. There is more room, freedom and opportunity for development and making money in our Dominions, and that is all to the good. We must do something to relieve the over-populated conditions of these small islands; we want to do it if we can in a way that will make everybody happy. When you once get people settled in this way in your Dominions, at once they become purchasers of your goods. We have been told in fiscal debates that a Canadian buyer is worth 10 or 12 times
as much to this country as an American buyer. It is argued that although this scheme may be very good, and the money side of it may be eventually overcome, yet it cannot be done quickly enough to be of any use. I know of a large transfer of population that took place two or three years ago, which involved the moving of 1,000,000 people from Turkey into Greece. If that could be accomplished by the poorest nation in Europe, surely something of the kind might be done by the richest country in Europe!
In conclusion, I ask the Government to use our credit in this way. I am sure they will get a good return for their expenditure. I urge them not to allow a stone to remain unturned which will relieve the burden of the unemployed. I ask them to do this for the sake of both the unemployed and the industries that have to support them year by year and month by month, and, incidentally, develop the Empire itself. As a last word, let me say this: Taking the Press of England as a whole, when England is in trouble it pulls together. There never was an occasion when England was in trouble to a greater extent than is the case in connection with the unemployment problem. The Press may disagree on questions of economy; one section may say we should economise, and another may say that the way to get rich is to spend more; but there is no section that differs on the fundamentals of Imperial development, and, when that is coupled with a cure for unemployment, I feel convinced that we shall not fail to receive the assistance and publicity which the Press can give.

Mr. C. P. WILLIAMS: I should like to support briefly the view that has been outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) with regard to the development of the Empire as one way of relieving un employment in this country. During the years 1920–22, I was privileged to visit British Columbia for the purpose of reporting on the resources of that country, and I was amazed at the potentialities that I noticed there. Here we work iron ore in Oxfordshire with 25 per cent. of iron, and, in Lincolnshire, ore with 22 per cent., whereas in British Columbia there are enormous masses of very high-grade magnetic iron ore comparable with the best class of Swedish iron ore. In the
Province of Alberta, also, we have one-seventh of the total coal of the world; but there is not an industry of that kind in the whole of those two provinces. It has been suggested to me that we in this country are too prone to look upon the development of the Empire simply from toe point of view of supplying us with foodstuffs. I do not wish to minimise that point of view, but I do think we ought to participate in a very intensive industrial development of that country. Ii one thinks of what happened in Chicago, which, from being the centre of an agricultural district with a relatively small population, acquired, as soon as industries were started, an enormous town population of something like 5,000,000, one asks why cannot that be done also on the other side of the border?
I would suggest to the Minister that, inasmuch as there is to be an Imperial Conference at an early date, he should get in touch with the headquarters at Ottawa, and also in Australia and the various other Dominions, and ask the provinces themselves to map out what they think best for their own development, so that we might have, say from Canada, a scheme in which the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, and so on, would participate—one concrete proposition from Canada, which would help us here to relieve unemployment and also would tremendously facilitate development in that country—and the same with regard to Australia and the other Dominions. I think the time is ripe now for a very intensive Empire development scheme, and I feel sure, apart from any party feelings, that, if the right hon. Gentleman could do this, it would add great lustre to him, and the country would be ever grateful for anything he could do to relieve us of the great, depressing problem that seems to be so permanent in. our midst.

Mr. LUNN: I understand that the last speech was a maiden speech. It has been very brief, but I should like to congratulate the hon. Member very sincerely upon the knowledge that, as we have learned during the last few minutes, he his of certain parts of the Empire, and I hope that while he is a Member of this House he will watch those Debates which concern the well-being of our far-flung British Empire, and say more than we
have heard from him to-night in future Debates on the important subject. I should be the last Member of the House to minimise the importance of finding employment for those who are unemployed. It is a most important subject. I have been out of work in the course of my life—as a young rebel I was prevented from obtaining employment in my district for a time—and, though I have not gone through all the horrors that hundreds of thousands of our population have gone through during recent years owing to unemployment, I can appreciate the difficulty in which they are, and have been, and seem likely to be for some time to come.
Any reasonable scheme that may be put before the House to provide work for those who are unemployed ought to receive our consideration, and ought not to be turned down simply because it is new. The proposal put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) is rather a new proposal. He seems to have found the reason for it, and for his speech, in the Report of the Coal Commission. He says to-night that the Coal Commission recommend that the Government should facilitate the transfer of displaced labour and arrange for its transfer, but I think he has extended the meaning of that particular paragraph. I rather gather, having read the Report, that the Commission were not thinking so much of transporting men displaced by the closing of mines to Australia, or Canada, or South Africa, but of the transfer of those men and their families from certain parts of Great Britain, where mines might be closed as the result of the Commission's recommendations, to certain other parts of Great Britain, where employment may be found in developing coal areas. I do not think I am altogether wrong in my interpretation. The right hon. Gentle man's interpretation seemed to enable him to leave Great Britain altogether in this matter of Empire development.
We had a Debate in this House three or four weeks ago, on very similar lines to the Debate which the right hon. Gentleman has opened to-night—a Debate in which the Mover of the Resolution suggested the transfer of large numbers of our unemployed to the Dominions. I think that if my right hon. Friend had read what took place during that Debate,
he would have learned that that is a most difficult problem and is, I might say, hardly an acceptable problem to the Dominions. It causes great difficulties, not only at home but in dealing with any of our Dominions, to associate the question of Empire settlement with our unemployment. At all events, since I started to take an interest in emigration—and no subject has fascinated me more than that one during the last few years—it has always been urged that our Dominions deprecate any action which directly associates Empire settlement with unemployment, and I think that everybody who is engaged on that subject and knows the details, is in the same position in this country. I would suggest, however, that Great Britain is a part of the Empire as well as those parts which are overseas, and I would ask the House whether we should not consider, in deal-with the unemployment which is in our midst and for which we are responsible—and, looking to the future, it may mean, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bristol suggests, 150,000 more miners being out of work as a result of the carrying out of the Coal Commission's Report—whether we should not consider taking control, by some means which the Government might put into operation, of millions of acres of land in this country.
There are millions of acres of land in this country that are not producing all that they might produce, and, knowing the mining industry as I do, I think that there are large numbers of men, with their families, in that industry, who are not far removed from the land, who have largely come from the land, who live in the areas where there is land obtainable, perhaps better than in any other industrial areas, and who would make good settlers if there were opportunities for them to be settled on the land in this country. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not only those who are in the ranks who need this provision. Only last night a man who went through the War as a captain was in the smoke room telling me he was unemployed, and had been for two or three weeks. For six years he had been engaged, not for himself but for someone else, in producing pigs and looking after poultry. He had come to the conclusion that, if he could be settled
on 12 acres of land, by the production of pigs and, as a sideline, keeping poultry, he could make a living but he did not know where it was possible to obtain the 12 acres of land. There ought to be no difficulty in this country in providing a man of that sort, who is capable, with facilities in order that he may earn a livelihood. We purchase hundreds of millions of pounds' worth of foodstuff from overseas, and I consider that that is not at all satisfactory. We should be producing more here. We can grow it on the laud, we have the men and women, and we need food supplies, and we ought to see that the land in this country is used better than it is to-day and so reduce that amount of importation of our necessaries of life that goes on at present. It is not only that we import all these hundreds of millions but we are largely depopulating the countryside and we are producing less every year instead of using the land to provide more than we do.
Then, regarding our Dominions, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he had not given much consideration to this matter and was not up to date with what was taking place with regard to migration. I think everyone will agree that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal—I am not saying this in any offensive way—has not been fairly worked out and is not in any sense of the word a considered plan, There is very little up to now that we can take hold of and build up a scheme from what he has suggested. Only four years ago, after an Imperial Conference, this House passed the Empire Settlement Act, upon which all our schemes are based with the Dominions for assisted emigration. It is on a 50–50 basis. It was accepted, I suppose, at the Imperial Conference by the Dominion Premiers, and arrangements have been made in many ways to assist migrants who wish to go to the Dominions. In my opinion it is a very reasonable method of dealing with the matter. I feel that it is as far as we ought to be asked to go in arranging schemes of migration that if we put up 50 per cent. of the cost of any facilities that may be provided, we have a right to expect that the Dominions concerned should put up an equal amount and pro vide facilities which shall equal the amount we put up. After all, we cannot go on for ever being a mulch cow for
every country on the earth. After the Debate of yesterday, in which it seemed to me that we are a mulch cow for several foreign countries, and are providing money to the extent of many millions per annum to assist foreign countries, think we should begin to be a little careful in extending schemes where we are going to be pumped dry for the benefit of any other nation. At the same time, I am prepared to say that if we are to find money, if we are to help, any help we have to offer shall be given to our Dominions in preference to any foreign country. I do not hesitate to make that statement. Though I am one of those who preach brotherhood and desire peace with the world, at the same time I consider that as 98 per cent. of the population of Australia is British, we should extend our help in that direction.
The figures regarding emigration are often criticised. There have been many questions lately with regard to the lessened number of people who are emigrating to-day as compared with pre-War. I think there is a mistaken idea in connection with that matter. In the figures of migration before the War the United States figured very prominently in the numbers that migrated from this country and from the Irish Free State. The Irish Free State is not considered in the f gores that are published to-day, and as the quota has been drawn so tight, and so low for the United States it affects cur figures largely in the comparison between what it was before the War and what it is to-day. Moreover, there are large numbers of people in this country who are desiring to migrate to various parts of the Empire. I believe if we could have a census of the people who have expressed a desire, and sought information how they can migrate to the Dominions, we should find there are many thousands of people who are anxious and willing to go if facilities can be given them. On Monday the right hon. Gentleman was asked what was the number of persons accepted by the Dominion authorities for emigration but still awaiting transportation. He said the numbers were, for Canada, families, 849, other persons 950, Australia 9,000 and New Zealand 2,550. They would go as soon as passages could be arranged. These have been already passed to go and there is no regard whatever to the large numbers
who are anxious to go but have not been passed.

Mr. GREENE: Is it not a fact that that large number of 9,000 waiting to go to Australia is merely temporary owing to the late unofficial shipping strike?

Mr. LUNN: I should not have thought shipping facilities were so bad that they cannot provide for the number of people who desire to go if there is a wish to make provision for them. I would like to see an extension so that whether a family desired to go abroad, or to be settled on the land here, there should be an alter native. If he is a married man with children it should be offered to him that he can go on the land either here or over seas. However far we could encourage the family idea of migration to the land, I think we ought to do so. But in any scheme it is our duty to see that facilities are provided for the people to have at least an opportunity of earning their livelihood in the country to which they are going.
It has been very pleasing to notice the success of many of those who have gone, say, to Western Australia, especially those who have gone from that excellent training camp, which I would like to see extended at Catterick. Under the Empire Settlement Act we are permitted to spend up to £3,000,000 a year for 50 years. We could go so far as to agree with representatives of the Dominions in any scheme, either for the migration of families or for single men or women, or for young people, up to £3,000,000 a year. It has something like 10 or 11 years to run. Up to now we have not spent an average of £500,000 a year, and we are not taking the full advantage of the fund. The blame is not here. The people want to go. You have an Over seas Settlement Committee, who are most anxious that everything should be done to arrange for them to go. The obstacles are elsewhere, and I think we ought to find out what those obstacles are and have them removed.
Provision may not only be made for land settlement, but under the Empire Settlement Act it is possible to arrange with the Dominions schemes for development. It is no use taking people into the wilds and leaving them there. There should be some means of transportation, not only for the individuals but also for their produce. We have with Canada a
3,000 family scheme which has been very successful and which I hope will continue to be successful. I should like to see the same thing extended in the different States of Australia. There is a. scheme now for lending money at a cheap rate of interest by the Government here to assist them in development schemes and land settlement schemes in their country. It has not been taken advantage of yet so much as we would like to see.
We have an excellent representative of the British Government, a civil servant, in Australia, one of the best men I know in connection with oversea, settlement, who is pushing things forward there, and we may see a development. I do not like to depreciate any idea which is going to find work for our people who are unemployed, or any idea for promoting the best means of emigration, but I do not look upon this proposal at this stage as a reasonable one from any point of view. I know the difficulties. It is no use misguiding the House by saying we can cure our unemployed problem by lifting the people from this country and dropping them into some Dominion overseas. That is not a cure from any point of view. I think we should help all who wish to go, and I think we should take advantage of every step to remove difficulties which exist at the present time. Equally with arranging schemes for land settlement with the Dominions, we should be considering at the same time how we can settle the people as an alternative on the land of our own country.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: I was very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down make reference to a scheme in which I have a great interest—the development in this country of pigs and poultry. At present we lag very far behind. If there is anything we can do in that way to help unemployment we should try to do it. I want to look at this question of emigration overseas, and I want to deal with it as it affects emigration to Canada. I had the privilege of visiting Canada last autumn and seeing how some of the schemes already working are prospering. The hon. Gentleman referred to the 3,000 family scheme. I had opportunities of seeing people who have settled under that scheme. I went round with some of the land officers who have been responsible for looking after the
settlers when they got there, and I was enormously struck with the great interest which these officers show in the families settled, the great care they are taking to make life as comfortable and happy for them as they can and the happy way these people seem to have taken to the new life. I saw the wife of a Welsh miner who had settled out there, and she assured me she was very happy in her new surroundings, and so was her husband.
I want to emphasise this point in connection with the people who are going out to Canada. There is a real danger, unless we try to get people more from the towns and try to induce them to go, that we shall simply drain our country districts of the very type of person we cannot afford to lose. May I just quote very briefly from a speech made by the then Prime Minister of Alberta, the Hon. Herbert Greenfield, at the Canadian Club at Ottawa on 6th December, 1924. He was speaking on this very question that only people who had any previous experience on the land were any use. He said:
Get the idea out of your mind, as the Chairman intimated to you, that it is essential to have agricultural experience to make good on the land in Western Canada, or any part of Canada. I had none. I have five farmers and a farmer's wife in the Alberta Cabinet. They have all done fairly well on the farms, and none of them had previous experience. Major Strange, who won the wheat championship in Chicago last year, was a green Britisher. The man who won it this year—I think his name is Mitchell—was a cotton spinner from Man chester. He did not have any previous experience in farming.
I think that quotation shows we have not only to look to our country districts for the population to go abroad, but that the people who come from the cities can make good quite as well if they are pre pared to do the work they find. I am confident from what I saw in Canada that anybody who wishes to work has a wonderful opportunity if he settles on the land. One of the great problems Canada is faced with to-day is the fact that she has miles of railway which do not pay already. That is one of the difficulties she is up against. What we want to do is not to try to fill up districts such as the Peace River district, but to fill up vacancies on the already existing rail ways, which are struggling and often find it very hard to make both ends meet.
That is the policy which the Government in Canada are anxious to pursue, and it is the policy which, naturally, the railways which serve those districts are anxious to pursue. They are determined to get those districts filled up, and so bent are they on filling their land with population, without which they cannot afford to carry the appalling load of debt, which has increased six times since 1914, that they are prepared to take people not only from this country but from else where. The people I have met out there said, "We would rather have Britishers, lout if we cannot have them we must have people from somewhere else, in order that we may live at all." Here I join issue with the right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol North (Captain Guest) in regard to the question of fifty-fifty. The people in Canada said to me, "Why, if we can get perfectly suitable emigrants from Central Europe, should we have to pay fifty-fifty in order to bring British people out, when others, in consequence of the United States veto, are coming out here as fast as they can?" I think we shall have to revise our estimate on that matter.
While I believe that there are great possibilities for our own people in Canada, and while I believe that those possibilities belong first and of right to people of this country, in so far as the people of Canada are willing to let them have them, I realise that if Canada is to exist she must get population. If we cannot supply the population she will get it elsewhere. That is going to be very serious thing for the British Empire. We have heard a great deal about the danger of Canada joining in with the United States. I found over there that the Brtish people with whom I conversed—and I spoke to them when ever and wherever I could—said, "We do not want this union to happen; we dread it; but facts may he too strong for us. The, Americans by their money, by the power of the purse, may prove too strong, and economic facts may compel a, union which would be so much against our wishes. We like the United States, but we have no desire for that to happen." If we cannot find the money, let us supply the people. If we do not, someone else will. Every family that goes into Canada, from elsewhere though they may make good Canadians, and probably will in two generations, have not the interest
in the British Empire and they have not the interest in this country that the people of our own flesh and blood have. Every family from Europe that goes to Canada, increases the draw towards the United States, because their inclination is towards their own friends and relatives who are south of the line. I hope that we shall be able to do some thing to help our own people from our cities, apart from the question of un employment, not only of our country districts, to emigrate and fill up the vacant spaces which there are in Canada, and to settle on the land over there for their own and Canada's advantage and for the advantage of this country.

Mr. CONNOLLY: My reason for intervening is to deal with a phase of this matter which has not. yet been touched upon. Before doing so, I would tell the right hon. and gallant Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) that if a work able, practicable scheme of Empire migration can be evolved by this or any Government, the support for which he has appealed will be ungrudgingly given from these benches. I wish to draw attention to the large number of people in this country who are desirous of going to our Colonies, but who cannot get there, not people who emigrate more or less as a great adventure, but people who have been in the Colonies, who know what the Colonies are, whose hearts are in the Colonies and Who want to get back there, but cannot because they have not the means.
I wish to draw attention to the figures which were given in an answer by the Colonial Secretary, on the 17th February, in reply to the hon. Member for East Cardiff (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the Estimates and expenditure in regard to Empire settlement. In 1922–23, the estimated expenditure was £350,000 of which only £35,000, or one-tenth, was expended under the Act. In 1923–24, the estimate was£1,159,000 and the expenditure £447,000. In 1924–25, the estimate was £853,000 and the expenditure £223,000. There is a very large margin of money which has not been expended, and I would ask the Colonial Secretary to consider a suggestion as to how some of the money could be expended whilst the schemes out lined by the right hon. Member for North Bristol are being evolved, so that we
might get a few thousand people back to the Colonies.
I will give two concrete instances from my own division. The first case is that of the father of a family who met with a severe accident in Newcastle, New South Wales, and returned under doctor's orders to Newcastle-on-Tyne. The man received compensation, but during his convalescence the amount of money he had received in compensation was largely expended, and the remainder was used in bringing him and his family home. The doctor said that his native air was the only thing that would entirely bring about his normal state of health. He is now fully restored to health and he wishes to return, but at the job on which he is now working it will take him some thing like two and a-half years to accumulate sufficient money to take him and his family back to Australia. I have brought the case to the attention of Australia House, but the rule there is rigid. No assistance can be given. The man must wait two and a-half years, and that time may have to be extended if there is any addition to his family and extra fares have to be paid.
The second case is that of a young man who had been five years in Australia. He joined one of the Overseas forces, fought in France for four years, came to this country, met a girl whom he made his wife, and now he has two children, and he wishes to return to Australia. He cannot get any part of his own passage money, but he can get assistance for his wife and the two children who have never been out there. I am informed that in London there are at least 5,000 men, some of whom were born in Australia, some of whom emigrated there in past years and have come back for one reason or another, mostly because of the great catacylsm of the war. Some of them came here for the first time after the war and, wanting to see something of the country, they delayed beyond the time within which the Australian Government would take them home. Some of them are working and some are not.
I suggest that money under the Empire Settlement Act might well be expended to get these people back. Even though some of them are employed, if they are sent back to the place in which their hearts are, they will make room for other
people, for some of our unemployed here. If they are not employed, they are a very heavy charge on national or local funds. These people, who are strongly desirous of returning, should be assisted in some way. The rules at Australia House are very rigid. I put up the best case that I could for my two families, but could not get them back to that country. But money spent in helping them would do them and ourselves a good turn. The one thing to avoid is the creation of the false impression in the Dominions or Colonies that we desire to get rid of people who may be looked upon as undesirable. I can say that these people are not undesirable. Like the family in my own constituency, they say, "Our hearts are in Australia. We want to be back, we are trying to get back, and eventually we will get back, and we will get back the sooner if we have assistance." I mention these cases in the hope that something may be done.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Whatever may be the faults of the scheme put for ward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest), it has the merit that it gives those of us who are interested in peopling the vacant spaces of the Empire, an opportunity of raising points which have been too long dormant. There are points which have been raised to-night, such as the fluctuation in the number of people sent overseas under the Empire Settlement Act—a fluctuation which has caused considerable apprehension among those who are interested in this question. When one considers that before the War about 250,000 people departed annually from these shores and settled overseas, that in 1913 as many as 280,000 were settled under the Empire Settlement Scheme, and when one looks at the figures of last year and finds that the total has diminished to 67,000, it gives one cause to wonder what are the reasons for this enormous fluctuation. On the other hand, after listening to the arguments put for ward by the right hon. Member for North Bristol, I could not avoid the feeling that a great deal of harm might be done if people in the overseas Dominions gained the impression that it was the intention of this Government to dump a large number of people whom they were unable to employ for a period on the Dominions and expected the Dominions to absorb them.
As one who was born and has lived in one of these overseas Dominions I know for a fact that nothing has been more detrimental to the promotion of overseas settlement than the fact that a large number of people are sent overseas, or are induced to go overseas, under false pretences. The picture is painted very prettily. They are told that they are to be employed on the land all the year round under the most delightful conditions. Anyone who has been in Canada, for instance, knows what the conditions there are. For six months of the year the conditions are everything that could be desired. You have an excellent climate, you have any amount of employment in the harvest, and no one who desires to work ought to be unemployed. On the other hand there are six months of the year when the climatic conditions are such that it requires a man of very sound physical stamina, who is absolutely determined to fight these condition's, to make good and find employment.
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned one or two possibilities in regard to Empire development. He mentioned the Peace River district. He also mentioned that he had never been there. I have been there, and I know that the conditions there are such that for six months of the year at least no man can find employment, because the country is snowed up and the temperature is any thing from 40 to 60 degrees below zero. For us to send men out from this country to a district like that, with anticipations of employment all the year round, is something for which we should not be responsible. As I have said, nothing could be more harmful to overseas settlement schemes than to send out people who would not be guaranteed employment all the year round. I know that large numbers go out to Canada in the spring. They work all the summer on the harvest. They are well employed and well paid, and they have opportunities of saving money. On the other hand, as soon as the severe weather comes and winter sets in, curing late October, or November, or December, these men flock into the towns, and there they engage in demonstrations of the unemployed. They send home the most harrowing tales to their people in this country, and that has been more detrimental than anything else to the
settling of the right kind of emigrant overseas.
I am putting that point of view, because I know the difficulties which these overseas Governments have in absorbing these men. I know that Canada and other overseas Governments are being criticised for putting obstacles in the way of the Mother Country. Any one who knows the conditions in Canada for six months of the year and the severity of the climate then, anyone who has gone to the big cities like Montreal, or Toronto, or Winnipeg from December to March, must remember the harrowing pictures that he has seen in those cities and the large number of unemployed who cannot find employment. There he sees the other side of the picture, and he will realise the difficulties which the Canadian Government have to face. In conversation, only yesterday, the High Commissioner told me that they wanted as many men as we could send, but men who would go on the land and would stick to the land. What would happen in the case of the proposition put forward by the right hon. Gentleman? You would send out battalions of men who have been engaged all their lives in the mining industry.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned only one method of providing employment, and that was in connection with the Peace River Valley. I have already dealt with that. I could mention many others that have been under development for many years before the Peace River Valley was thought of. For example, there is the Hudson Bay Rail way. That railway has been under construction for many years, and there they have been facing exactly the same problems as confront the Peace River Valley or any other scheme in North-Western Canada. I could mention many other schemes which could absorb and employ a large number of men during part of the year. Canada and all the overseas Dominions want men who will go out there prepared to stick to the land. I agree with the hon. Member who has said that they need not necessarily be men experienced in agriculture. Any man, regardless of what his employment and his position may have been in this country, who goes overseas knowing the conditions which he has to face, and who
is prepared to face those conditions and stick to the land, will, I feel confident, make good.
I should like to press one point which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn). That is in regard to the Catterick training school. I know the hon. Gentleman has been largely responsible for that scheme, and all credit to him. I understand it has been the means of training a large number of would-be settlers, and I would like to see it extended. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs to consider the desirability of a similar scheme in relation to Canada, because the same conditions apply. The men should be given a. certain amount of training before they go overseas, and with that training I feel confident they would make all the better settlers.

Mr. LAWSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just addressed the House has spoken with an authority to which few of us can pretend upon this question. He has given us stark facts which are in some degree a corrective to the ideals held by some of us concerning Empire migration. Incidentally, the hon. and gallant Member has, in his own, candid way, and out of his own experience, given us strong reasons why the Labour sections in the various Dominions and Colonies are sometimes opposed to the rather indiscriminate migration schemes talked about in this country. Labour in Australia and Canada and elsewhere in the Empire is a factor to be reckoned with, and I do not think we shall do anything effective in this respect until we are in direct touch with the Labour representatives in those countries and until we get, not only their consent, but their sympathy, in regard to any schemes we have in hand.
10.0 P.M.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who raised this matter has certainly rendered a service, though one might well wish that this discussion should have some results other than the usual barren results attending upon discussions of this kind. I would prefer, that we had been discussing suggestions such as that brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), that the Government should have a joint Committee. facing the question of unemploy-
ment in all its aspects, from the point of view of migration as well as from the point of view of re-settlement on the land in this country. I do not know if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) knows that the Government have schemes in various Departments for the training of men. Reference has been made to Catterick, about which I spoke a few days ago as one of the most-heartening experiments conducted in this country for many years. It is a scheme which has settled upon the land, in one of our own Colonies, 60 families, the heads of which to-day would almost certainly have been unemployed had they been in this country. A scheme each as that, which is doing good work in preparing men during the last year of their Army service for work upon the land, and in various other capacities, is one that should not be standing still, but which should be enlarged as rapidly as possible. We have schemes in connection with the Army for training men in land work and various other forms of skilled work to fit them for settlement in various countries of the Empire, we have men in the Navy being trained, and we have men being trained under the Ministry of Labour.
The Ministry of Agriculture has a scheme of its own, or, at any rate, it has a Land Settlement and Training Department. But while we have all these schemes there is no co-ordination. I do not suppose the Ministry of Labour has the slightest idea of what the War Office is doing at Hounslow or Catterick. There is no reason to believe that they know what is being done by the Admiralty in the same direction and that there is no cohesion is shown by the fact that you have men leaving the land and being sent off the land in this country to other countries, and you have men leaving the land to go into other industries. In the mining industry last year, while there were nearly 200,000 miners unemployed, some 25,000 men and boys went into it from other industries.
I suggest that all the schemes I have mentioned should be co-ordinated and that some one body should be made responsible. They should have a definite object and, while the Army and the Navy and the Ministry of Labour may continue to do this work in their respective
spheres, the Overseas Settlement Committee should have more jurisdiction over these training operations than they have at present. As has been said already, if we can train men who are useful in Australia, if the Australian Government ask that as many of these men as possible should be sent out, there is nothing to hinder us from doing the same thing in relation to land in this country which is not in use now but which has been in use. Men are being trained in pig breeding; they are being trained for the plough; they are being trained in various arts and crafts, and they are fitted to do effective work in Australia while their wives are trained in dairy work.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last described some of the conditions in the Peace River district of Canada, of which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Bristol spoke so very highly. The last speaker gave another picture of that experiment. If these men and women can be trained to do effective work in other parts of the world, surely it is possible to train them for equally effective work on our own land near the railways and the great centres. I have heard a Danish expert say that, in the bulk, our land is better than Danish land. Surely we can do something towards the re-settlement of our own people on our own land. If we make an attempt to meet that problem by restoring the people on a decent scale to the land in this country we will probably break down most of the prejudice which prevails in this country concerning emigration. After all, what happens? The people say, "All they are trying to do is to boot us out of the country after we have served it." If there is any opportunity of getting rid of that prejudice against working in the Colonies, and at the same time of getting into touch with those representative sections of labour in the different Colonies, so that we can get sympathy and help in that particular section as well as in the ordinary way, as we have done in the past, then that opportunity should be taken.
If I have one contribution to make to-night it is to say that the Government should co-ordinate their efforts for training men that are going on in the various Departments. I would like my hon.
Friend to have his scheme for the settlement of this country considered by an unemployment committee composed of representatives of all parties, who could discuss this unemployment question in the same atmosphere in which we have discussed it here to-night. There has not been a single debating point made hero to-night. There has been nothing but a heartfelt desire to face this question which is demoralising our people through out the length and breadth of the country. I have seen in the last two or three years—men who never knew what unemployment was and who all their lives had been used to regular work—unable to do any work at all for the last two or three years. That applies to whole areas in which nobody can get any work. I shall never forget a friend of mine, who had been idle 12 months and who had got work at last, saying to me, "This has been the most miserable time I ever spent, and the worst of it is that I am now in a hole which I shall never get out of as long as I live." I ask the Government, in the name of humanity and of God, to get something done in order to express the heartfelt desire of this country and of this House to save the men who are being demoralised in this country at the present time.

Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER: I do not propose to waste my time in trying to impress upon my right hon. Friend the advantage of Empire migration because I believe the most powerful speech on that subject ever delivered in this House was delivered by the right hon. Gentleman himself during the passage of the Empire Settlement Bill in April, 1922. I want to lay before my right hon. Friend three problems which are exercising minds very much in the great industrial areas of Lancashire and Cheshire. Our problem there is, in the first place, how best to take steps to convert industrial people into suitable migrants for settlement on lands overseas. That is not such an easy matter, but I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some assistance and advice in regard to that.
The second question I want to put to him is, how can we best provide suitable migrants, whom trade depression has rendered penniless, with the means of proceeding overseas and carrying on until they are capable of earning money?
It is all very well to say that we must entirely divorce the question of unemployment from the question of migration. I agree that we should keep them apart as far as possible, but at the same time there is the fact that, owing to trade depression, in certain large industrial districts such as Lancashire and Cheshire there are thousands of good people who, through no fault of their own, have been reduced to their last penny. To ask those people to put up money, even for assisted passages, even to put up a small sum of money to carry them on when they land overseas, is asking them to perform an impossibility, and I hope my right hon. Friend will take into consideration that problem.
The third problem is how to remove the dread of loneliness which we find deters many people from proceeding over seas. They fear—wrongly, perhaps, but still they do fear—that when they get overseas they will find themselves among strange surroundings and strange people. It would be a great help to emigration if arrangements could be made whereby our people on arriving at their destination would find that they not only have neighbours who were fellow-Britishers, but that they have a large proportion of neighbours who came from their own counties and districts. Another point I want to raise is this: Would it not be possible by some arrangement to get the restrictions which have been imposed by the Dominions reduced and in some cases abolished? My right hon. Friend would probably agree that the restrictions which are placed by the Dominions do very largely tend to reduce the possibility of sending out from this country many settlers who would be entirely suitable. We have to admit that every Dominion has the sovereign right to make its own laws and arrangements. At the same time, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend and the Oversea Settlement Committee, that very excellent Department, could not make some arrangements to get these restrictions reduced. I say these few words because we in Lancashire are con fronted with a huge industrial population who are and have been suffering for years from acute trade depression, and it would undoubtedly be to the good of those people, of this country, and of the Empire if we could get arrangements made to
facilitate suitable and willing settlers being transferred to suitable places under proper supervision in our oversea Dominions.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: To those of us who have had this question of Empire migration close at heart for years past, it is always a most welcome thing for a Debate to take place in the House of Commons in which references to party distinctions were all made subsidiary to the national problem and the national responsibility. It is unfortunate, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, that the questions of unemployment and of the distribution of population should be necessarily part of one problem. It is no good blinding ourselves to the fact that the conditions with which we are faced to-day are part of one and the same problem. It appears at first sight an easy matter to look at the vast un populated areas of the Dominions with their limitless possibilities and then to look at our overcrowded industrial population and to say, "Here is an overplus of population, there an overplus of area. Fill the vacant spaces with those who cannot make a livelihood here." The matter becomes of great complexity when we have to face the problem of fitting a round peg into the square hole. If un employment is a national tragedy the most serious thing is the tragedy of the younger generation who are going on to the labour market, who have never done a day's work in their lives, and start their careers with the prospect of going on what some of us call the dole on the threshhold of their careers. With regard to them I would like to make a suggestion to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.
One of the complaints that we get from our agricultural and rural areas to-day is that by the policy of the Government, with cheap emigration fares and rates, to Canada particularly, and other Dominions, and with the facilities that are offered for agricultural workers, our own countryside is being denuded of its best means for rehabilitating our flagging agricultural industry. That is a very serious problem, and it is one of the problems, among many others, that faces those of us who spend our time and interest in the question of rehabilitating the agricultural industry. Where are-the new sources of labour to come from
to fill up the gaps in the countryside that we see to-day? The suggestion that I wish to make is one that may possibly have a bearing on both those questions, and I should like, if possible, that the Secretary of State for the Dominions should co-operate with the Minister of Agriculture in this matter. We know that many of the organisations for getting young fellows, and particularly boys, and giving them opportunities in our Dominions abroad have been attended with very great success—I mean organisations such as Dr. Barnardo's Homes and various training centres—but they have all necessitated expensive capital organisations for the purpose.
I want to see a mobilisation of our existing agricultural industry here at home to fulfil a two-fold purpose, namely, to be a means of training and developing young people to take their place in the agricultural activities of our own country, and, at the same time, to be making a potential reservoir of youthful emigrants to our Dominions and Colonies. I am thinking particularly of boys from the concentrated industrial centres, the natural type of British boy who likes to join the Boy Scouts, who has got the pioneering instinct in him, if it is not quelled sooner or later by constantly having to live in surroundings of street lamps and cinemas. We want to get him at that impressionable age out in the countryside, where he will get a certain amount of rural and agricultural surrounding and develop that innate taste for an outdoor life that every boy worth his salt has got. I believe that if some thing like what we know as the Big Brother Movement could be developed here in our own country—and that is a question that was developed by one of the hon. Members on the benches opposite a short time ago—you might get farmers in this country interested.
We have the industry here ready for mobilisation—it is not a question of the Government or anybody else putting up capital for it—whereby we could place such boys who have passed the test of inspection by some organisation that would satisfy itself that the boy himself was worth while and that the farm that he would go to would be a satisfactory place. A boy would thus get a training in those impressionable years from about
15 to 17, and at the end of that time he would have learned his job, at no expense. He would have been apprenticed to the agricultural industry here at home. At best, perhaps, he would get the taste for remaining in the agricultural industry, and therefore form that reservoir of workers whom we shall sadly need if we wish to maintain, let alone develop, the agricultural industry of this country. Next, if that were not the line which his tastes induced him to follow, he would be looking ahead to the opportunity of carving out a career of adventure and going abroad to our Dominions or Colonies, with the training that he had had at home, which would be more likely to suit him to make good in those new countries than if we were dealing with men who needed a larger opportunity, denied them as they had not had any kind of rural training. Finally, if the boy preferred to return to the industrial centres, at least he would have had a period in those impressionable years of his life which would have developed him physically and probably mentally as well.
I do wish to make this suggestion to the Secretary of State, because I think something on these lines might well be developed, so that we might be able to start flowing a stream which would be developed into a river, getting, not those whose mentality and whose characters have already been formed, but the younger generation who are still in a plastic state, who can be got from the often depressing, and too often degrading surroundings of some of our fully industrialised and over-crowded centres, on to our own land, offering them opportunities, if necessary by agricultural legislation, to find a career on their land at home, and, at the same time, to be training and preparing those who would make potentially successful emigrants to fill up the broad areas in our Dominions which are crying for an increase of population, and which are holding out enormous undeveloped resources. That is the one suggestion of, I hope, a practical nature, which I wish to make this evening, and which, I trust, the Minister will see his way to consider.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Like other Members who have offered a few remarks to-night, I should like to begin by congratulating the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who initiated this discussion upon the fact that he used his opportunity for
raising issues in this House which are, or could be made, of material benefit to the people of this country. I am one of those who deplore the amount of time that is consumed here on issues which are very remote from the lives of the people of this country, and I congratulate the right hon. Member who raised this subject to-night upon the fact that he made concrete proposals. Whether they are wise or unwise, whether they survive the criticisms that have been made upon them by hon. Members opposite, I am unable to determine, but I do congratulate him and other Members who attempt to offer practical suggestions for dealing immediately with this horrible menace of unemployment.
I do again desire to reinforce the suggestion I have made previously, that all parties in this House should agree on some form of Select Committee—not a Royal Commission—to discuss immediately practicable schemes for dealing with unemployment, should report upon these schemes once a month to this House, that this Committee should have power to send for persons, papers and documents, and that we should have an opportunity in this House of voting Aye or Nay upon immediately practicable schemes for dealing with unemployment. I do not suggest at all a Select Committee for academic discussions, but to consider concrete proposals put up by local authorities, by some of our town councils and county councils, that are never voted upon in this House, and can not be discussed in this House, because the congestion of business here makes it impossible that they should ever come before it. Yet if we had some Select Committee, some organisation of the House, which could deal, in the first instance, with these proposals, I feel certain that the people of this country would receive very material benefit. The proposal that I have to make is concerned with immediate proposals for dealing with unemployment. I have made it before in the House.
The Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department has been going about making speeches on the subject as if the proposals were off his own bat. I do not object. I welcome any proposals which have any sort of economic sense in them at all which will substitute something
better for the present system, which is corrupting the morale of our people. There should be something better than that they should receive money and give nothing in return, so losing their physique and their morale in every possible way. As the hon. Gentleman opposite said a moment ago, there are in some of our districts young men who have never worked at all since the Armistice, who have never had a job at all, this being not due in the slightest degree to themselves, or through any fault of theirs, but due to an economic policy over which they have not the slightest control.
The proposal I have to make has considerable backing from many hon. Members, some high in the Government, and I am perfectly certain of my figures, because I have discussed them with members of the Government of India. I know that the Secretary to the Over seas Trade Department has already been good enough to make speeches on them. What, then, is the proposal? We have under our flag in India to-day one-fifth of the whole of the human race. Their purchasing power is so very, very low; at the best it is estimated to be £4 per head per annum. They cannot buy clothes, boots, furniture, and really in some cases they cannot buy food. Millions perish because their frames are so worn through privation that they cannot stand up against disease. This fifth of the human race, or 318,000,000, are in India. They are potential customers for our goods, yet they cannot buy. The late Lord Curzon estimated their purchasing power at £2 per head per annum. I give it at £4. These 318,000,000 people use 20,000,000 wooden ploughs to scratch—for it is nothing else—the surface of the soil. There are 60,000 agricultural co-operative societies, all sound, all vouched for by Government representatives in India. Is it not possible to substitute iron ploughs for these wooden ploughs? Why cannot we lend India iron ploughs through the 60,000 co-operative societies? Why cannot we lend 3,000,000 iron ploughs on the basis of a two-harvest loan, We should immediately set our engineering industries going full blast, set our iron trade going, give our coal trade a big lift up, and assist our shipping, and at the same time we should be raising the
purchasing-power of potential customers numbering one-fifth of the human race.
I will call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Government to-night to the fact that Lieutenants-General and Governors-General are coming back from India and reporting on these lines. One of them wrote an article in the "XIXth Century Magazine" for last month, in which he said that if only we would increase the purchasing power of the people of India by d. per head per week, 2s. 6d. a year, could increase British exports by no less than £40,000,000. The computation can easily be checked. Anyone going through India will see poor fellows lifting water from their village wells to irrigate the fields. They are using old skin bags with holes in them, just as their ancestors did thousands of years ago. They cannot water their fields with these old sheep bags, though they toil day and night, sometimes with one bullock, some times with two bullocks, sometimes with no bullock at all at this most laborious and useless method of raising water.
Why cannot we lend them the necessary 500,000 oil engines through village co operative societies, on approved security, to enable that water to be pumped automatically and distributed over the fields? Is would save an enormous amount of human labour, and would increase the crops; and immediately we increased the crops from one bushel to the acre to three, four, five, or 20 bushels to the acre, we should increase the purchasing power e. the people of India and make them potential, in fact real, purchasers of all kinds of British goods. It is not only a case of ploughs and oil engines; we could supply crushing engines and all sorts of machinery of that kind. There is an enormous market waiting for us; but we must give them credit. They must have at least two harvests' credit in order to be able to increase their purchasing power.
I do not desire to take up too much of the time of the House. I recognise that Debates like this are the most useful Debates that take place in this House, the value of them lying in the fact that a large number of Members can offer the best suggestions that are in them in order to get something done; in fact, I would like to hear a larger number of Members
taking part in them. I want to say, how ever, before I sit down, that I agree with hon. Members on this side of the House that we must not only increase the purchasing power of our customers abroad but the purchasing power of our people at home. We have had some splendid instances of what can be done at home. We do not require to go to Peace Valley, Alberta, or anywhere else abroad, to raise the purchasing power of the people. There are the Orkney Islands. Co operative holdings are being developed there, and the result is prosperity and a huge increase in the purchasing power of the people, because they have dispensed with the middleman and market their own goods.
There is also the case of the small holdings that some of us visited at Fen-wick, Ayrshire, where coal-heavers and other men who never were trained to agriculture have set up small poultry farms and have become prosperous and are earning a good living. We really do not need to go to the uttermost ends of the earth. We should use our opportunities at home, and start by reforming the machinery of this House, so that we can discuss practical proposals for dealing with unemployment; and then set about the task, not with the object of decreasing the purchasing power of our people at home, or decreasing the purchasing power of our potential customers abroad, but of raising their purchasing power. Then we should begin to see a way out of this horrible mess in which we have been entangled since the Armistice. It is the increase of purchasing power that matters, and I hope the Colonial Secretary will give this House some indication that the Government is prepared to cut right through the old traditions of this House and set up a Select Committee charged with the duty of examining every practical proposition for dealing with unemployment that can be submitted, and report once a month to this House. We could then let this House have a direct vote upon the operations of that Committee, and then we shall begin to feel that we are getting our teeth into this subject and doing something tangible, and not merely passing round the Division Lobbies and leaving the world no better than we found it.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I am sure the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down has been most interesting as well as suggestive, though it Slightly differs from the line adopted by other speakers. I am sure he will not expect me to give off-hand an answer to the interesting points which he has raised. I will, however, most certainly tell the Prime Minister not only of his suggestions but also of the large measure of sympathy with which they were received in this House. As to the subject generally, I only wish a larger House had been present because I have rarely heard a Debate which, as one hon. Member has already stated, was so entirely free from debating points, and one in which every hon. Member, in the briefest possible time, has contributed practical and constructive ideas. The Debate began with a most stimulating and interesting speech by my right lion. Friend the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest), and it has been followed by speeches which, although they have not been in the same strain, were of an extraordinarily practical character, and filled with first hand information which the House of Commons never fails to find on every subject we discuss. Hon. Members have criticised the practical difficulties in the way of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Bristol, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go over then again, because very forcible arguments have been used. But Whether the actual scheme is practical or not, the conceptions underlying it are of value. You need the volunteer or pioneer spirit. You need the recruit training. You have the transport to the port. This is a question, of course, which intimately affects the problem of the un employed, and all we wish to safeguard ourselves against is the idea that people should go overseas because they are un employed and not because they are the right men to go abroad, men with the pioneer spirit. Just as an expeditionary force requires its battle front, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman's expeditionary force you must have some practical scheme on which the men axe to be employed.
Those main elements of the scheme put forward are true, however they may have to be carried out. Whether the exact
form of a military organisation, such as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, can really be applied is quite another matter. In the first place, it is obvious that schemes within the ambit of another Government of the Empire cannot very well be carried on by the Government on this side. Whatever the organisation is on the other side, it must be under the control of the Government overseas. Then, again, you have to consider whether the military type of organisation is really the best for carrying out the practical work of the scheme. The ex-officers to whom my right hon. Friend referred are in many respects admirable men for military leadership, and yet it is always possible that, when you come, say, to building a railway, whether under the Government or under contractors, they may not necessarily be the best foremen for railway work, and that an experienced railway foreman would be better. You have all these difficulties. You have the difficulty of finding actual schemes to which you can bring a large body of people without either interfering with existing labour conditions, or building up schemes which are premature from the point of view of the economic needs of the country. The Peace River scheme is one of these, which was at once criticised from that point of view in the very able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Aberdeen (Mr. Barclay-Harvey).
Let me take the first portion of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion—the idea of training. I think that all of us who have followed the problem during the last few years, like my hon. Friend the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), have become convinced that there is a great field for training the man who is a town dweller, or the youth who would other wise become a town dweller—for training him, as long as he is still adaptable, for work on the land in any part of the Empire, and I certainly do not exclude this country from the conception of the Empire. Experience shows, in fact, that it does not require a trained agricultural worker in this country to make a good and successful farmer overseas. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Aberdeen quoted some very striking instances given by the Premier of Alberta, himself an unskilled agriculturist who became a successful farmer and Premier of a great
farming community, and I have come across the very same conditions myself in different parts of the Empire. I have met some of the most successful farmers of Australia who came from the centres of our great cities. I remember, years ago, in the Canadian prairie, meeting a man who was reputed to be the most successful farmer in the district, and I talked with his about his previous experience. He told me that he had been in a pastry-cook's shop in the East End of London, and had never seen a green field until he was in the train which took him to Liverpool.
More recently, I remember that, in the coarse of my work when I was chairman of the Overseas Settlement Committee, when we encouraged the ex-service men, whom we had given free passes, to write to us of their experiences, I received a letter from the Peace River district—that region which, not so long ago, was thought to be absolutely in the Arctic regions—from a man who had been out there for a year or two. He rejoiced in the life, in the sense of owning his own property, the sense that he was increasing the value of that property, the enjoyment of sport, like trapping and fishing, and so on, and he expressed his willing ness to take on and train any two or three spirited young men who might be sent these. As a matter of curiosity I looked up this man's record, and for 17 years before the War he was a tailor in Edmonton. It shows that it does not require a trained agriculturist to be a success overseas. Certainly in this country we cannot afford to spare too many trained agriculturists from an industry which is struggling against great difficulties, and which all parties in the State mean to have revived. Just as the city-bred boy can make a successful farmer in Australia or Peace River he can make a successful farmer in England or Scotland when the conditions of agriculture in this country are dealt with in a policy which is going to make agriculture a success.
What I should like to say about this discussion is that it has really turned on the question why in these post-War years the movement of migration for the development of the Empire and for the creation of a more equable balance in our whole economic system has been so slow. That is the real problem. The
years immediately before the War were years undoubtedly conducive to a great flow of migration. First of all, there was great prosperity in the development of the Dominions. In Canada those were boom years, both in the sale of Canada's produce outside and also in the building up of a tremendous railway system which is now a good deal ahead of the population. All that naturally stimulated the flow of migration. On the other hand, you had a great period of good trade here, which stimulated migration in two ways. It enabled the ordinary working man who wished to go with comparative ease to lay by the necessary money to pay his own fare without any question of State assistance. Similarly, it enabled the capitalist with comparative ease, in times of lower taxation and prosperous trade, to set aside large sums of money for investment overseas, all of which helped the flow of emigration, and last but not least, the steamship and railway passages were only a fraction of what they have been since the War. The whole of that movement stopped dead during the War and for something like six or seven years there was practically no migration at all. There was none during the War or during the difficult period of repatriation after the War, and it was only after several years that the movement began again.
What was the condition then? Take the condition in the Dominions first of all. Instead of a steady impetus of population coming in year after year, and, therefore, increasing the demand for fresh population, you had a dead stop to emigration, and even the losses of casualties on the battlefield. Instead of a surplus capital and a low taxation you had, in every Dominion, a burden of debt and a much higher rate of taxations. Instead of the abundant markets they had before the War, you had a restricted market in Europe, and the market of this country not yet recovered from the effects of the War. Here, on the other hand, you have had such a condition of industry that the very best type of men, the men who know where they want to go, who do not want any public assistance, who want to save, are not in a position to save even the money which would have got them across the seas in pre-War days, far less the money required for the very heavy cost of ocean passages since the War. Simi-
larly, instead of a free flow of capital to the Dominions, you have it very much restricted. But for a complete change in the policy of this country there would have been practically no migration. For the first time in recent history we did consider—and when I say we, I mean successive Governments without distinction of party—our duty to help those who wished for wider opportunity across the seas, to give them a reasonable chance of access to that opportunity, and, as far as possible, to give them that reasonable chance within the British Dominions. Something like 100,000 men, with their families, were enabled to go overseas under free passages to ex-service men. It became obvious that you could not do that on an immense scale only at the expense of the British taxpayer. The interest of the Dominions in getting new population is at least as great as ours in getting a fair chance for our surplus population. Added wealth, revenue, man-power, citizenship go to the Dominions, and though we get from men overseas a far bigger market than we would if they went to any foreign country, and a better market than if those men who are prosperous there had been unemployed, or only miserably employed at home, still, the greatest interest is theirs.
This business of emigration ought never to be thought of as a means of ridding ourselves of people we do not want. After all, if all the expenditure were to be made by this country, the suggestion would inevitably follow that we do this in our interest because it is only our interest. It is from the point of view of true Empire partner ship in which both sides are contributing an equal benefit, as well as from reason able consideration of the finances of this country, that I should be very loth to part with the principle of true co operation in this matter. On the broad principle, co-operation and partnership is a sound principle. The restriction and limitation upon assisted passages, which has been one of the chief reasons why the flow has not been as large, does not arise because the Dominion Governments grudge the money. It arises because conditions overseas are not yet such that those Governments are prepared to spend up to anything like the limit which we have
been prepared to spend. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) very fairly put some of the difficulties in Canada. They are not insuperable, but they are difficulties which the Canadian Government has to face. Every other Government has difficulties. That is one of the reasons why the flow of assisted emigration has been limited by rules and regulations devised, not to save the money of the Government concerned, but to ensure that those who did go should succeed, and that people should not be tempted to go overseas and then have to walk the streets of Toronto or Sydney.
Once the revival comes in industry you will have a demand for industrial development there as well as for agricultural development, and, as in pre-War days, there will be a demand for industrialists from this country as well as for young men who prefer to go on the land. I agree with what was said in the interesting and brief maiden speech of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. C. P. Williams) that there is a great field for building up new industrial schemes, power schemes, electrical schemes in the Dominions where skilled workers of this country can go straight, without having to be trained to become agriculturists.
As far as we can make preparations under the Empire settlement schemes we have done a good deal towards it. Take the scheme which is in existence between ourselves and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia, under which we are to contribute for 10 years a capital sum of £7,000,000 towards a series of loans amounting to a total of £34,000,000 for schemes of every sort and kind, as a result of which 450,000 people are to go out at reduced passage rates to the Commonwealth of Australia. Once the conditions of carrying out that policy, which are already agreed upon between us, are really in motion, the ideals of my right hon. and gallant Friend will be rapidly executed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Lunn), whom I can call my friend without distinction of party, referred to the success of the 3,000 families in Canada who have been settled out there under the scheme, and direct witness was given to that by the hon. Member for Kincardineshire (Mr. Barclay-
Harvey). I have seen several hundreds of letters from these settlers, bearing witness to the extraordinary care with which the work of settlement has been carried out, the care in selection at this end, the real live human interest taken by the officials of the Dominion Government and, what is no less important, the extraordinary friendly welcome shown by all their neighbours on their arrival. They found the fire laid, the tea got ready, eggs and chickens were brought, indeed every thing to enable them to live comfortably for two or three days while they got used to their surroundings. Their neighbours were tumbling over one another to give them a friendly welcome, and to help them.
11.0 P.M.
I admit that that scheme is on a very small scale at the present time, but it is well to build soundly and to test your ground. If we can prove that a particular type of scheme—and the Empire Settlement Act admits of an infinite diversity of schemes—works soundly in the case of a few hundreds of people, there is nothing to prevent it being extended, as conditions improve, to deal with thousands and even tens of thousands. It all comes back both as regards the willingness of the Dominion Governments and as regards unassisted emigration to conditions being favourable. The hon. Member for East Newcastle (Mr. Connolly) pointed out that when one deals with assisted emigration there are rules and regulations which often debar some of the most deserving cases. He drew a picture of two cases, where he knew the people, who will have to work two years or more in order to save up sufficient money to migrate, when it would be so much better for everybody that they should be able to go out at once. The real remedy for that class of case is not so much to attempt to alter the various Regulations, although I think in many cases the Regulations could be more liberally applied, but to facilitate unassisted passages. After all, a man likes to go on his own if he can, without assistance. So long as he knows what are the ordinary conditions, he likes to put down his own money and to go, but, unfortunately, the cost is in many cases much too high, and I cannot help thinking that one of the questions that could be most fruitfully discussed at the Imperial Conference is how, not only to extend the scope of assisted
passages, but by some form of assistance from the Governments concerned to cheapen the cost of unassisted passages. I want to say one further thing in conclusion. What the Dominions always bring home to us, as indeed Mr. Bruce brought home to, us at the Conference of 1923, is that you cannot separate the question of men from the question of money and the question of markets. It is no good sending a man out unless you send out a corresponding amount of capital with him. If the settler has not capital of his own, there must be either the capital of the capitalist who starts power schemes or factories or whatever it may be, or there must be the capital of Governments helping in the acquisition of land and seeing the settler through the early years. In one way or other we have to provide the surplus capital in this country and make it available for overseas settlement. At present we import so heavily that we have practically no surplus capital. We have to increase our exports and in one way or another to reduce the volume of our unnecessary imports in order to create a margin of capital to help on this great movement.
With regard to markets, I do not wish to enter on any controversial point, but what is quite clear is that anything which would enable this country to increase its consumption of the goods produced in the Empire at once facilitates the flow of migration. It is our duty not merely to help a man to cross the seas, but to give him a fair chance overseas. That duty dons not stop at the reception arrangements at Quebec or Melbourne, or seeing him get his first job; it continues also in doing what we can to give him a chance of making good by buying the things that he grows. There are many ways in which we can do that. We can do an immense amount, even without those wide measures of fiscal re-organisation, in which, at any rate, I have always been a profound believer. We can do a 'great deal by drawing the attention of the people of this country to their power and their responsibility and their duty as purchasers. Quite apart from any political action or anything that arouses controversy, every citizen, man or woman, in this country can help the success of Empire migration and help the consequent increase of our export trade
if, whenever other things are equal, they give a voluntary preference to the purchase of the goods which their fellow citizens across the seas produce.
If they do that, they can help enormously. What the Government can do is to help them to identify which are Empire goods and which are not, and help them through the publicity and other measures which we contemplate in connection with the future expenditure of £1,000,000 a year. That will help the ordinary citizen to do something, both to strengthen the Empire as a whole and to contribute to wards the solution of those grave domestic problems, which have been discussed to night in a temper so worthy of the great-
ness and gravity of the problem and in so helpful and constructive a spirit.

Question, "That the Bill he now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes after Eleven o' clock.